I watched the movie “Gladiator 2”, which I had been waiting for 24 years. do it this way

The other day the release of the long-awaited sequel to the cult film “Gladiator” from 2000 took place.

Not even that. Initially, no one was expecting this movie; the first film was independent and did not ask for a sequel. However, 24 years later, the next part was released, announced quite suddenly. And even then it became interesting what could come out of this.

Ridley Scott, a director capable of giving audiences a true cinematic epic, has returned to one of his most famous creations – Gladiator. However, in the resurrection of the magic of 2000, his new work evokes mixed feelings.

We have already watched the new product and will hasten to share our impressions. Despite technical excellence and a significant cast, the film, alas, does not live up to its legendary leader. What exactly? Let’s figure it out.

Here they rely on entertainment

What is the film about?: the film tells about the fate of Lucius – the grandson of Marcus Aurelius and the nephew of Commodus – two emperors of the Roman Empire from the first part of the film. The film takes place 25 years later.

From the opening frames, it’s clear that Gladiator 2 is all about visual grandeur. Ridley Scott masterfully reproduces the scale of ancient Rome with its grandeur and cruelty. The Colosseum lives in the details, from the dazzling white marble to the dusty arenas where gladiators face certain death.

One of the most impressive scenes was grand sea reflectionplayed out in the arena. The water performs the Colosseum, turning it into a makeshift battlefield where ships encounter obstacles and gladiators fight wild animals. This scene is reminiscent of the bold visual experiments that audiences saw in James Wan’s Aquaman.

Another parallel could be the desert night scene, reminiscent of the meditative sequences from Denis Villeneuve’s Dune. Here, too, aesthetics take precedence over content, increasing tension through light, shadows and landscape. But unlike Villeneuve’s film, the atmosphere in Scott seems less connected to the overall themes of the plot. It’s as if they were filmed for the sake of beautiful pictures, but nothing more.

The actors understand, but they have almost nothing to play

One of the strengths and at the same time weaknesses was the performance of Paul Mescal, who brought fresh energy and charisma to the role of Lucia. His constructive performance on the military stage and our inner assistance through gestures and facial expressions make him a convincing gladiator. However, the script does not allow him to fully reveal himself: Lucia is cooling off. static and insignificant deep motivationwhich limits the emotional impact on the viewer.

Denzel Washington as Macrinus creates a charismatic performance that combines power and grace. His lines are replete with pathos, a performance of complete theatricality that, while impressive, sometimes only causes bewilderment. One way or another, the image of the villain is too typical, which creates a feeling of multi-layered character.

Pedro Pascal added balancing drama, playing a reserved and noble general. His performance inspires respect, but the audience sees damn little of him; poor character development turns the role into a symbolic one rather than a key one.

As a result, Pascal remains in the shadow of other actors and you quickly forget about him. To be honest, I can hardly even count half the moments with his appearance on the screen.

Plot: so is it a repetition or a continuation?

The main complaint about Gladiator 2 was its scripts. Instead of a bold continuation of the original story, what do the films look like? stupid remake with new decorations. The theme of place, which was central to the first part, is reworked here, but it packs an emotional punch. Attempts to add political intrigue do not add weight to the plot, David Scarpi’s script in places seems so simplistic that it is even possible.

You just don’t believe in such incredible laziness of the screenwriter in these moments. Or he was chained to batteries and forced to write at least something in order to increase the chronometer.

Some plot moves look unconvincing. For example, fight scenes are instantly tense and transitions to achieve the highest level of CGI, which is an obstacle to the development of the story. Dialogues are often overloaded with pathos, which impairs the realism of what is happening.

Although the film bills itself as a historical drama, its approach to reaching ancient Rome is questionable. Elements like gladiatorial shark fights or enhanced visual costumes reminiscent of 300, where stylization trumps authenticity. This approach may be appealing, but it robs the film of the authenticity that made the original a cult classic.

And there are questions about a whole range of visual solutions. The same monkeys that Lucius encounters in the summary. It’s either wild on them savedbecause they look more like characters from a computer game with a low budget, or Ridley Scott decided to make them the new Aliens when I start yelling.

In general, a complete stopper.

Worth watching, but not for the plot

Gladiator 2 is a film that emphasizes spectacle over substance. It’s certainly learned to appeal to those looking for a visual delight, but for fans of the original it’s likely to be a disappointment. Lacking the emotional depth and innovation that made the first film a classic, the sequel felt like a step back for Ridley Scott.

If you appreciate historical epics for their narrative and emotional complexity, then this film is unlikely to satisfy those expectations. But if you’re all about simply enjoying the beautiful images and epic action scenes with another bucket of popcorn, the film can be a worthwhile entertainment.