Gladiator II
 

I would say Ridley Scott (director and producer) has outdone himself this time. For me, every bit as good as the original. Great action everywhere, CGI, and cinematography. Paul Mescal plays the lead role convincingly; Pablo Pascal, Denzel Washington, and the entire supporting cast was great. Excellent twists and turns, cringe worthy gore. Even the opening credits were a treat. I don't want to spoil anything.

We meant to buy tickets to IMAX, but missed that we were in the wrong section. This is IMAX appropriate if I've ever seen it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1733279492.jpg

I have been fascinated by Roman History since the seventh grade when I found the book, Outline of Roman History, in the library.
The real story is better.

This is pure fantasy, with some time travel thrown in. I even think I saw Deadpool in one of the scenes.

Scott should have added a few fire-breathing dragons.
It would have been more realistic.

But with movies the way they are today, who am I to complain.

I've seen trailers/info on this. I'm eager to see it. The first one was GREAT! And this one seems like it should also be excellent.

It is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

the first one was so great, and the about the power of being a minority and how wield it.

ive herd good things about 2, but i have not even watched a trailer. i tend to be suspicious of these decade+ later sequels, ill probably watch it on streaming at some point.


also bucking the trend, i felt beetlejuice beetlejuice was better than the original, or at least somehow less cringy. i think fixing the age gap relationship issue really helped me enjoy beetlejuice as a character more this time. and of course Catherine Ohara remains one of the best unsung comedic actors of our generation.

The opening scene of Glad 1 remains one of my all time favorites. Glad 2 is a sequel - for me OK but a bit too out there --the rhino etc. I know its fiction but............

Connie Nielsen.....

I was confused for a min, because my brain thought "Brigitte Nielsen" who is another looker.

We enjoyed it as movie entertainment. It was a bit predictable - I think forumulaiac as one reviewer put it.

thank you for that, mirrored my thoughts to a T. Was thinking of logistics to flood a coliseum with enough waterproofing and water depth for battleships and...sharks... With seawater, in ancient Rome, on a whim... I even pulled a google map mid movie to remind myself how close Rome was to the sea (not that close) I mean, maybe but....

Guess I'm a curmudgeon now but I like my movies shooting for "realistic", even if not completely so... Say "Bourne" > "Beekeeper", or "the martian" > sharks in the coliseum.

I have seen shows and read articles for years (not just since the movie sparked interest) that said that there are reports that the Romans flooded the Colosseum to hold naval battles. It certainly sounds far fetched, but the Romans were a thoroughly impressive group with some amazing engineering. It certainly seems as though it was possible and may have occurred once.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/naumachia.html

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/naumachiae.html

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/ancient-rome-once-filled-the-colosseum-up-with-water-and-staged-epic-mock-sea-battle

https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/gladiator-ii-the-evidence-for-colosseum-naval-battles/

https://www.badancient.com/claims/flood-the-colosseum/

Any naval battles in the Coliseum would have been soon after it opened in 79 AD.
Afterwards, there were halls and ramps and cages built to hold the animals, gladiators and support people. These below ground structures would not have allowed it to be flooded. You can still see them today when you go to Rome.

Naval battles would have been held at nearby lakes. These had the advantage of being larger, for more mobility and deeper for better drowning.

Interestingly, the Coliseum was known as the Flavian Ampitheatre after the dynasty that built it.
It took the name of Coliseum because of the colossal statue of Nero that stood nearby.

Right, that's what I read. Any naval battle may have happened very near the opening, and maybe only once. Then Domitian renovated in a way that made flooding impossible. I believe the renovations that made it impossible are visible today.

What we see in the floor today, was actually below the "ground level" when the colosseum was active.

https://cms.througheternity.com/uplo...rground_2.jpeg

I am shocked to learn it was decent. Just looked up reviews that say its pretty good.

Usually sequels to this type of movie are crap. Glad they didnt screw it up. Watched Beetlejuice 2 recently and was kinda Meh.

I just saw it. IMHO it was derivative and a poor copy of the original. It was entertaining enough but I don't think it compares favorably to the original.

Meh! I was itchin’ to leave. Went in the back and read email on my phone. I’m More of a hail caesar man myself.

https://youtu.be/N9v6VJLZ8_I?si=L7mnGMqAAWYPJjIt

I just watched this with friends. I enjoyed it but it's not as satisfying and the first.

It was certainly a spectacle on the screen. But the "blood a gore" was overdone IMO.

It was a decent film to watch once. Unlike the first Gladiator film, it is not one I will likely watch again.
Cgi was decent, but was just a little off. I never thought it was real, never got into it.
Character development I thought was weak and a little confusing.
Plot line predictable- with the twists and turns only adding to the confusion.
A few memorable scenes, but not a memorable movie.
I left disappointed.
gary

I've purposefully not seen it, for reasons confirmed here. The first was great, seen it many times now.

The trailer just looks silly.