Twenty-four years on and Ridley Scott’s belated follow-up to his biggest critical success is finally on cinema screens. How does it compare to the first film? Can Paul Mescal convince? Does Denzel Washington steal the show? And how about that rhino? Here’s the place to unpick it all.
Can it compare?
Paul Mescal has said that he’s doing something different to Russell Crowe, who plays his father. Is that difference something you embrace or are unsettled by? Washington’s character says that rage pours from Lucius “like milk from a whore’s tit”. Did that rage translate effectively?
Some critics have found the film’s structure a little too reminiscent of the original: was that an issue for you? Or is a retread what a lot of audiences actually want?
Denzel, Pedro … and the rest
Washington has picked up the most Oscar buzz for his role as a ruthless power broker. Is it deserved? Who else would you single out for praise or shame? Were Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger’s madcap twins a touch too Joaquin Phoenix-lite? Was Pedro Pascal given enough airtime? And wasn’t it great to see so much airtime for Tim McInnerny?
AI, CGI etc
Reviewers have had the rendering of the baboons in the cross-hairs, but how did you think they compared with the walloping animatronic rhino, the vistas of ancient Italy, the generous beheadings and all the sharks?
This is about survival!
Crowe once summarised the plot of Gladiator thus: “We have, like, that massive fight sequence at the beginning of the film and that’s followed by a series of massive fight sequences, building up to a massive fight sequence, so that we can end in a fight sequence which is what even I’d describe as massive.” Which of the massive fights this time round was best – and which fell flat?
Death becomes them
There are some remarkably creative and squelchy ends met in Gladiator II. Did you see the dozen-arrows one coming? And was there a touch of Monty Python to that final reel lopping?
‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then’
Scott’s robust response to historians who’ve questioned the accuracy of his period efforts might make you think twice before wondering if they really did have newspapers in ancient Rome (The Roma), or whether sharks swam in the Colosseum, or if syphilis was a thing back then. But come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough.
Little women
The press notes for the film generously pile on about how Connie Nielsen’s character is the smartest, sanest, wiliest of the lot. But how are the women here – all two of them – treated? And how much Oedipal friction did you pick up between Mescal and his mum?
A kiss is just a kiss
Pre release, it was the improvised smacker Mescal bestows on Pascal in the ring that picked up headlines. As the film arrives, it’s Washington’s revelation about a cut gay clincher which has generated heat. How sex positive was the film, given its relative chastity?
‘The people have not seen hope in many years’
How does the film speak – if at all – to the current political landscape? Does it show that we underestimate wealthy men with an ear to power at our peril? How gaping are the gates to hell right now? How smooth that descent?
The sequel
Scott is drafting it now and says it will be like The Godfather Part II, with Lucius less than happy about the power and responsibility he’s landed. What direction would you like to see that film go in?
Were you entertained?
How does the film measure up not just to the original but against the rest of the movies currently on offer? Is it a welcome throwback or a dusty old relic? Did you and the rest of the audience bay for more or give it the imperial thumbs down?
Source: theguardian.com
