Twenty four years later, Ridley Scott delivers a sequel to the smash hit Gladiator. The original not only won five Academy Awards including Best Picture and Actor, but it is one of the best films of all time. That is a lofty precedent set for its sequel. Does it live up to the task?
Our protagonist, Lucius, is forced into servitude in the Coliseum after his home is conquered by the Romans under their tyrannical emperors. He must be a gladiator to survive and confront his past waiting for him.
Let's start by saying what we knew would be true. Ridley Scott never disappoints with his sound and visuals. The set, CGI, and more are always top-notch whether the movie is or not. The visual of the ship battle within the Colusiem bodes well long with the rest of the battle scenes. The fights are entertaining and worthy of watching.
Scott is a great director, but his films are not always. He will make acclaimed films like Gladiator or Blade Runner, but then direct Napoleon. If you have seen the later movie, you will likely agree that it was a big swing-and-miss. He always has a unique vision. Sometimes, that vision does not work on camera to me. His films are like those of the Roman emperors who give a thumbs up or down on the film's fate.
Each actor gave a solid performance from Denzel Washington to Paul Mescal. Denzel has been receiving some award attention so far, and I can see why. He is one of our lifetime's best actors and puts his best foot forward. His character can transition from diabolical to slimy to smooth. While not a better antagonist than Joaquin Phoenix in the original, he certainly deserves some praise.
I knew next to nothing about Paul Mescal who plays Lucious. He has been gaining traction in drama-based roles, but he wanted to prove that he could play this type of role. Prove it he did. At no point did I think he was miscast as the lead. You believed his physicality was genuine.
Other quality performances included Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian) and Joseph Quinn (Stranger Things Season 4).
My brother Logan and I both agreed on the main problem of this movie, the pacing is way too fast. That may surprise you for a two-and-a-half-hour movie. The story should have been cut down to expand certain scenes or add about thirty more minutes of screen time to flesh it out. That is a problem when an already long movie feels rushed.
It greatly affected the emotional aspects of the film. More than once, a character was killed off, and our protagonist had no time to mourn or double back later to mourn the death. It would go from one major plot point to the next but had trouble proving to the audience that it was deserved. This greatly affects the rating I give it.
I have to wonder what some deleted scenes look like. Sometimes producers and studio executives stick their hands into a movie and mess it up. A perfect example is Kingdom of Heaven made by none other than Ridley Scott. The theatrical cut is considered a bad movie, but the director's cut is considered exceptional. The producers forced Scott to reduce the original runtime.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, the original runtime was nearly four hours. Perhaps you do need to cut some waste from that. Perhaps also, too much was cut.
Earlier, I wrote that a Ridley Scott film is like the Emperors giving a thumbs up or thumbs down. I may give a shaky thumb in the middle this time. It at least breaks the mold of a movie being amazing or bad. This one is decent to good.
My film rating is a C+.
Comments