GLADIATOR SEQUEL | RIDLEY SCOTT / PARAMOUNT

Mondragon said:

.... the cuirass armor evolves as more is added to it. Somewhat reflecting the scene/situation he is in:
As first given to him by Proximo (has no horses or tree)

Then when he first meets Lucius and first faces Commodus it has added the two horses and tree (emblematic of his lost home).

*(fun fact Latin: Silver & Trigger)

Then for his second meeting with Commodus (the Tigris battle) it has added the icons of his wife and son. (where Commodus brutally taunts him specifically about them)

Then for the third and final battle with Commodus, and his own death, it now has added an angel, as he joins them in the afterlife.

And ...what Lucius inherits.

Would post it in the figure thread, though it seems to be locked? - https://www.collectorfreaks.com/thr...-collector-figure.173752/page-8#post-10528121

Click to expand...

The whole "take your father's strength" inheriting the armor call back (jump to 1:18 they visually want you to make the connection)....
Which (for anyone with a love of detail that wouldn't mater to most, if you follow above^) references the Armor which specifically depicts, his to-the-death unwavering loyalty and devotion to his lost wife, child and his place in this world (see what the tree and horses represent).
Knowing he has nothing left in this world, gives him the strength to finish what has to be done, and follow them to the next life.
That loyal devotion is what carries the character and movie to the end.

So even though I recognize the set-up allows for Lucius to be his other son (and I even recognized it at first watch way back then), Lucius now wearing the woman, child and "place" as his own inheritance and strength, kind of flies in the face, and betrays everything about the original (for me).

That said, if handled well (I doubt it), all that can in fact be used to serve the drama and angst of the "new" character.

Would also post it in the last figure thread, though it seems to be locked? - https://www.collectorfreaks.com/thr...-collector-figure.173752/page-8#post-10528121

I've seen that movie countless times and never even noticed the additions to Maximus's armor. I'm an *****.

Crickets…

Verdict - Solid action movie. Good spectacle and fan service. But would not pay full price to see this in a movie theater


Notes

- Paul Mescal is in over his head here. He's not bad, he's just not compelling. But the script was not very good. If there's a silver lining here, it's that this film will get more people to look into Mescal's filmography, and give Normal People a shot. It's a short series, but quite well done, where he costars with the lovely Daisy Edgar Jones. They have phenomenal chemistry at times.

- This is not a good script. It's just not. The core story is predictable but pretty flawed. Execution is not great.

- Like many of Ridley Scott's more recent films, there are too many characters, there is only cursory development, many scenes are just not very economical, and it appears he's trending towards the habit of filming an outline instead of a more organic approach built around a cohesive narrative

- The first film was extremely self contained, but there were two lingering threads to possibly exploit for a sequel, and IMHO, Scott chose neither of them. This is just my take on it, but I'm assessing less on my preferences and more on mining fertile narrative ground

- How Denzel Washington handled this ( poor script) was he treated this like he was playing a different character for a different movie. He salvaged his role with his trademark charisma. He did a nice job of stopping right before he reached "mail it in / caricature mode" though ( i.e. the over the top cameo schtick you get from John Malkovich, Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum, Al Pacino, etc, etc)

- The structure of the film is to burn time to get to the next action set piece. There is nothing wrong with that, if you accept that this is an action movie and not a classic/epic tier film

- Like Predators and The Thing reboot, this one oscillated too far into too much homage to the original over just more practical storytelling. From a screenwriting standpoint, it's guardrails versus road barriers. Guardrails are OK because they don't impact the pacing, but legacy canon from the first film turns into road blocks that choke out momentum. Sword and sandal films specifically are very reliant on an effective pace to resonate.

- The best parts of this film are the battle sequences, mostly salvaged in the editing room. The editing on this film did some true heavy lifting. I recognize that specific aspect is harder to translate to a majority of the casual movie going audience. Not a criticism, but a distinction. When you see disjointed areas of a film in it's transitions, and you are jarred out of the world building and suspension of disbelief, consider you are given the most optimal framing possible by the editing room. This is a safe red flag to assess when a production is stacking too many reshoots into the mix. You really do need to start these things with a pressure tested clean script.

- Comparison wise, it's like a poor man's version of Stallone's Cliffhanger, but not as fun and not as self aware. ( I actually love Cliffhanger for what it is but I recognize it's casual disposable viewing)

- Most reviewers are compromised but I suspect many of the stronger reviews are because Scott's films are usually a palette cleanser. Being a modern full time reviewer is not fun in this era. A majority of the mainstream films now are basically lecturing you or trying to shame you into a corner. That bull #$%@ has to be exhausting. No wonder it's a relief to just see some people get stabbed in the face with a sword.

I have always been very interested in the Roman Republic / Empire, so I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy this movie very much.
I'll wait for it to hit streaming somewhere, there's no way I'm paying extra to see this.

Oh well, the excited reviews from the screenings had me feeling optimistic for a while there, but now it appears my original instincts were right that this will be more like Ridley's recent bloated historical epics than the original Gladiator.

I'll probably keep my ticket for this weekend though, since there's not much else out there right now. And I am curious to see Denzel chewing the scenery.

Idk, I watched a review about it. If even half is correct, this is a nothin burger. I'm really not feeling Danzeiel Washington's role. They claim he's the best part of the film and this only solidifies my fears.

This film was cast for nominees. Him being the nominee, of course.