Gladiator II - the controversy begins here

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

This is the first review I’ve seen of the long-anticipated / dreaded sequel to Gladiator though I’m sure they’ll soon be coming thick and fast, and not all may be as positive.

Before reading, it may be worth bearing in mind that the reviewer, while generally a sound guide to a film’s virtues and / or lack thereof, is prone to lapses of both judgment and knowledge. An example of the former, which may immediately invalidate this review for some, is his glowing praise for Scott’s previous film, which, it is fair to say, is not well regarded by LAFers, or anyone with a moderate knowledge of the period in question. As for the latter, it may suffice to mention that his review of The Return of the King betrayed a lack of understanding of the respective roles of Sauron and Saruman. (He was not, to be fair, the only critic to confuse them, or to apparently believe them to be one and the same.) In a career of 25+ years, however, he may be forgiven the odd misstep, however individually egregious.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/nov/11/gladiator-2-review-paul-mescal-ridley-scott

[Rick]

Ho hum, here we go again. Hollywood ignoring history, picking bits and pieces from hundreds of years apart and bashing them together with huge amounts of make-believe using the 'kewl' hammer. It'll be visually amazing to watch, but make no flippin' sense historically - it's the 'Bill and Ted' history lesson.

[Captain Blood]

Well Bradshaw’s pretty much said what I thought on the basis of the trailer alone a month or two ago. Shot after shot basically showing new versions of iconic moments from the original movie. Identical in some instances. So not a sequel but a remake. A second bite of the cherry.
One wonders why, at the age of 87, Ridley Scott feels the need to remake a movie he made 24 years before. Because he surely doesn’t need the money. I guess he just felt he could improve on the original.
We shall see

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

I recall that talk of a sequel telling the story of Lucius began shortly after the original appeared. My reaction at the time was ‘Why?’, which remains the case. Perhaps we’ll see Napoleon II in due course (or not see it, if we have any sense).

P.S. Some may have noticed a purported trailer for ‘Braveheart II’ on YouTube. This appears to be what may charitably be described as a hoax, with clips taken from various sources, including the original Braveheart. Unfortunately it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish this kind of nonsense from reality.

[carlos marighela]

One wonders why, at the age of 87, Ridley Scott feels the need to remake a movie he made 24 years before. Because he surely doesn’t need the money. I guess he just felt he could improve on the original......

Dementia? As they say about Alzheimer's, you are constantly meeting new people.

If not, maybe he reflected upon his last cinematic outing and thought 'Hang on! I used to make films that were at least crowd pleasers and cineplex fillers, whatever their artistic merits. Maybe I could do that again?'

[Rick]

They say everyone has a price, perhaps Hollywood finally found Ridley's? It certainly has the all the indications of a cash cow remake rather than an all-new film.

[Tom Dulski]

 Wait, it's a remake? I thought it was a prequel.

[Belligerentparrot]

Wait, it's a remake? I thought it was a prequel.

I think officially it isn't a remake, but Bradshaw's point is that an awful lot of this supposedly new story mirrors the plot points and/or scenes of the original.

[Ninefingers]

 

Wait, it's a remake? I thought it was a prequel.

It's a sequel.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

But is it sequally good?

[jon_1066]

I certainly shan't bother - Ridley Scott is not a selling point for a movie these days.  Long gone are the days of Alien, Blade Runner or even the original Gladiator.  He has nothing interesting to say or any point to make and should have retired a legend rather than crumble into a pastiche of himself. 

[Easy E]

Now-a-days, you go into a Ridley Scott movie to see the cinematography and what and how he points the camera at things.  You are looking for beautiful images. 

He is not the director for story, plot, character, historical accuracy, etc.

[Michi]

I loved the original movie for what it was: Great storytelling with awesome shots and impressive acting along with a monumental soundtrack.

I watched the new one last night. It was looking much like a remake for the first half and actually is meant to be a sequel with two actors I recognised from the first movie and one character whom is played by another.
The entire thing was way behind the old one, although some props and costumes looked better. That‘s it…

[Harry Faversham]

Soundtrack any good!
 

[carlos marighela]

Forget the music, forget whatever passes for a plot and just embrace the homo-erotic celebration of oiled up beefcake strutting its stuff in revealing costumes. Don't think of it as film, more an animated Tom of Finland meets Angus McBride picture book.