If I had to ask Ridley Scott 'why would you risk the legacy of the first film with this… this… replica of a film with a slightly more complicated narrative?’, I would ask him more nicely. ‘Why did you make this film’?. Either way, he would tell me to go where the sun does not shine.
Gladiator II continues the memory of Maximus years after his death by focusing on his living son, Lucius portrayed by Paul Mescal. This was never confirmed by the first film, only that Maximus had protected Lucius for his mother, Lucilla, the sister of Commodus. This brings up my first issue with the film. There was no need to forcefully make Lucius biologically linked to Maximus, the story would have felt a lot more natural.
Pedro Pascal is cast as the overworked and battle-hardened Roman general giving us the honourable character to root for and rely upon. Pascal and Mescal felt like two halves trying to fill the hole of Maximus, unfortunately never being able to get anywhere near the authenticity of our protagonist from the first film.
What made the difference in those 24 years between both films to elevate our experience? Denzel. I think I was only ever going to watch this film for Denzel. I came for Gladiator II but I stayed for Denzel. Ultimately becoming the film’s antagonist, he fulfilled an urge to watch him sway and swoon his way to the top of Roman democracy using the weaknesses of certain Senator and the twin Emperors.
Another question. You expect me to sit there and believe that the Romans were able to fill the Colosseum up with water for a Gladiator mini ship battle? That’s where I draw the line. The VFX felt shoddy and the premise makes it an even harder watch. Not to mention those who watch the film and believe it to be true.
I cannot seem to justify the existence of the film, nonetheless it was a spectacle.
Komentarze