Gladiator 2 – is this movie worth watching?

Gladiator 2 – is this movie worth watching?

86 years Ridley Scott There's no good streak lately. The creator of specified iconic works that have been recorded in the past of cinema specified as Aliens, the huntsman of Androids, or the first Gladiator Just – despite his incredible age of spirit and creative fertility, despite his unquestionable ability to movie full-blown staging of battles, duels or visualization of alien planets – he has produced films at best in fresh years (Last duel), at worst – tragic (Napoleon).

After the self-destruction of the legacy of 1 of his classical series about Aliens – he took on the most unnecessary continuation of 1 of the best films in his achievements (and in my humble opinion the best) – Gladiator. Could anything good have come of it? Plans to make a continuation of the Gladiator began to germinate 20 years ago just after the premiere of Part One, which proved to be both artistic and place success. Only how to proceed a movie that tells a full, closed from A to Z communicative that the hero in the final loses his life?

There were many ideas. In 1 of the script versions (written by Nick Cave) Maximus Decimus Meridius, resurrected by a pantheon of Roman deities, would return to this grave of tears as an immortal warrior to fight the forces of evil (whatever in the author's imagination they would not be) throughout history—from ancient Rome to the Vietnam War. This script did not last the trial of time (as the lead singers for Russell Crowe came not only years but besides kilograms), and the author of the latest script (David Scarpa, the screenwriter of the infamous “Napoleon”) decided to desecrate the cult hero in a different way. Well, after 2 decades since the beginning of part one, it turns out that noble Maximus (not representing the strict Catholic values, of course, but you will admit that, as for today's cinema standards, it was a crystal figure), even though the love for the murdered wife and boy was for him the main driver of the first film, he betrayed his beloved daughter, Emperor Mark Aurelius, Lucy. The consequence of this betrayal is Lucius (in this function Paul Mescal), hiding in Nubia under the assumed name of Hanno, and he is the main protagonist of the continuation.

The communicative of the second part copies all the most crucial threads of the original, somewhat modifying them. Hanno, as a Nubian soldier, loses his wife during the war with Rome, goes into captivity—to be the destiny of his unfaithful father to become the scurrying regulation of vengeance (against the General of the Roman troops of Acracius, in which Pedro Pascal emulates) a gladiator, the invincible master of the arena and the savior of the people of the eternal city and no little eternal villages. Hated by the main character Accasius, however, he is rapidly a good-looking fellow, who wants to overthrow the tyranny of the 2 duplicate emperors – Geta and Karakali, and in addition the fresh husband of Lucius' parent and the most interesting hero of the film, and the main antagonist for unknown reasons is – presented previously as a affirmative character Makrynus (in this function Denzel Washington) – were gladiatorToday's owner and coach gladiatorwho gives our hero a chance to make bloody revenge. Confused? Yes, the first part was a simple, but very effective and full of content communicative about honor, sense of work towards homeland, love and revenge. The second part fills us with unusual twists of action, characters with vague intentions or ambitions and themes that rub against moral dramas resembling “Tough Things”.

Unlike the first script, it's full of stupid, weird and full bullshit. The previously mentioned Makrynus – created by the majority of the movie into a affirmative character (being a black copy of Proximus from the first part), in the 3rd act it turns into Joker, or another anarchist from Antipha – who decides for no apparent reason to set fire to Rome and flee to Bieszczady, gloating in the odor of Napalm in the morning (not rather so, but I do not want to uncover how the full case ends with those of you who are going to watch this film).

The main character is simply a little charismatic copy of his unfaithful Father, and behaves in a somewhat little bizarre and obscure way to the viewer than an antagonist of the film. All the characters undergo unmotivated transformations to snap a finger – depending on which direction the screenwriter wanted to lead the communicative – and the only authentically interesting figure is this general of the Roman legions Accaius, whom unfortunately there is very small in the film.

Another drawback of the communicative here is the besides frequent and flaplological mention to the first and constant blinking to fans, resembling “fan servis” commonly utilized in films about superheroes or star-wars, making the movie not entirely stand on its own feet – constantly trying to support the iconic original.

I am a bully, and believe me, that I have mentioned only a modest part of the stupid things accumulated in the script, not wanting to uncover besides much of the game – is it so fatal? Well, not really, due to the fact that against appearances – I had a beautiful good time on the movie. Even though the screenplay of the movie is bizarre and absurd – everything else stands high. Battles and fights are bloody and awesome (Ridley Scott has always been celebrated for the championship he achieved in presenting about historical performances, and despite his advanced age he has lost nothing from his directorial craftsmanship), the momentum of the presented events is the first league of high-budget Hollywood, the movie has a good pace, it is not boring, and the action flies over his head so rapidly that he does not even give us time to decently announcement and digest the aforementioned defects and feature holes. any of the sequences of actions can delight (if limited while watching reasoning and does not anticipate logic) – and the first series of conflict gives a good kick of adrenaline. Photos and soundtracks stand on a advanced level, like acting (especially Denzel Washington steals all scene he appears in here).

The movie besides does not torture us with fashionable contemporary films in rainbow threads, or lustful scenes (it is totally devoid of them) – which should be counted as a plus of production. Gladiator 2, is simply a movie of many flaws and many advantages, much worse than part one, but besides incomparably better than the offensively even weak “Napoleon”. This is an exceptionally average (because there are fewer aspects done on average, but very many both good and weak) which makes it very hard for him to give a numerical assessment. So is this movie worth watching? Well, that depends on the approach. If you anticipate an interesting moral story, message and character characters nothing in part 1 – definitely not. That's not the address. You're gonna leave the theatre embarrassed. But if you want to watch a pleasant and artistic (or silly) exciseist with a past in the background, without expecting intellectual exultations – it is possible to have fun on this film, and in this position the ticket to the cinema is worth its price.

Arkadiusz Olszewski

We besides recommend: It's urgent! Gregory Braun expelled from the Confederacy