After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to it... Read allAfter his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.
- Nominated for 1 Oscar
- 9 wins & 110 nominations total
Summary
Reviewers say 'Gladiator II' impresses with visuals and performances, especially Denzel Washington and Pedro Pascal, but falls short in emotional depth and originality. The grand scale, action sequences, and themes of power and redemption are praised, yet the script is criticized for predictability and underdeveloped characters. Paul Mescal's performance is deemed lacking compared to Russell Crowe's, and the film's reliance on CGI and historical inaccuracies is noted.
Featured reviews
Visuals are stunning, sets and costumes look reach and amazing. Pedro Pascal is great in every scene, he's really selling all the emotions with such subtlety and minimalim. And that's about it what I've found good here.
Main actor is one of the huge problems, he always looks pale, like he is not really acting and has no real emotions. He was supposed to grab our hearts from scene one, however it somehow didn't happen. Film lacks some more time at the begining for the audiance to meet and fall in love with him, so that his motivations are more believeble and his story be more emotionally relatable.
Another huge issue is the story that goes everywhere, plot of Denzel Washington's character is just bizzare and bloated, diallogues are shallow in general...
I expected worse, but anyhow this movie left me feel numb...
Main actor is one of the huge problems, he always looks pale, like he is not really acting and has no real emotions. He was supposed to grab our hearts from scene one, however it somehow didn't happen. Film lacks some more time at the begining for the audiance to meet and fall in love with him, so that his motivations are more believeble and his story be more emotionally relatable.
Another huge issue is the story that goes everywhere, plot of Denzel Washington's character is just bizzare and bloated, diallogues are shallow in general...
I expected worse, but anyhow this movie left me feel numb...
There seems to be a trend these days when making follow ups to beloved classics that you need to add more. More characters! More action! But that doesn't always equal better. It's almost like filmmakers these days think we're stupid and want more of everything but all this does is sacrifice quality.
What made the original such a classic was the relatively simple plot, a protagonist you cared about and action that felt earned and impactful.
This one is so overstuffed it feels rushed. The plot feels like a lazy retread of the first but I didn't care about any of the characters. Paul Mescal was so wooden it sounded like he was reading his lines. If this is how he acts, I really don't see what all the fuss is about with him. Am I missing something.
The action, while visually impressive, lacked impact. Some studio exec probably thought 'hmm there was only 1 exotic animal in the first film, we can do better! Let's add way more!'
What made the original such a classic was the relatively simple plot, a protagonist you cared about and action that felt earned and impactful.
This one is so overstuffed it feels rushed. The plot feels like a lazy retread of the first but I didn't care about any of the characters. Paul Mescal was so wooden it sounded like he was reading his lines. If this is how he acts, I really don't see what all the fuss is about with him. Am I missing something.
The action, while visually impressive, lacked impact. Some studio exec probably thought 'hmm there was only 1 exotic animal in the first film, we can do better! Let's add way more!'
Everyone has seen Denzel Washington praising fellow actors Pedro Pascal and Paul Mescal for their acting - but the reality is there is nothing special - they are actors that acted - their performance did not elevate the film to the glory of the original.
Storyline wise the film is a joke - the plot twists are illogical and only work because the characters are forced to change - the first half of the film concentrates on a man's desire for vengence which is overturned by a single line of dialogue.
Hollywood is failing - it clearly looks to have been influenced by accountants and MBA muppets that somehow believe the more twists a film contains the more $$ it attracts.
Side note: if Rome was so great - why was it always falling apart.
Storyline wise the film is a joke - the plot twists are illogical and only work because the characters are forced to change - the first half of the film concentrates on a man's desire for vengence which is overturned by a single line of dialogue.
Hollywood is failing - it clearly looks to have been influenced by accountants and MBA muppets that somehow believe the more twists a film contains the more $$ it attracts.
Side note: if Rome was so great - why was it always falling apart.
The film offers a thrilling experience, the narrative and character development could have been more robust. At times, the storyline feels rushed, and some character arcs lack the depth that made the original "Gladiator" so compelling. This leads to an overall experience that, in my opinion, does not quite reach the heights of the original.
Additionally, Denzel Washington's portrayal is noteworthy, but his American accent felt somewhat out of place within the context of the film. It occasionally detracted from the immersion, making it harder to connect with his character fully.
To sum it up, "Gladiator II" is an entertaining blockbuster that delivers on visual spectacle and excitement. While it struggles with certain aspects of storytelling and character depth, it still manages to provide an enjoyable cinematic experience for fans of the genre.
Additionally, Denzel Washington's portrayal is noteworthy, but his American accent felt somewhat out of place within the context of the film. It occasionally detracted from the immersion, making it harder to connect with his character fully.
To sum it up, "Gladiator II" is an entertaining blockbuster that delivers on visual spectacle and excitement. While it struggles with certain aspects of storytelling and character depth, it still manages to provide an enjoyable cinematic experience for fans of the genre.
If ever a film did not need a follow up, it's Gladiator, some films are just not meant to have sequels, Gladiator is definitely one of those.
Not bad, but not good either, the main question I have, is why, why was this made, is the creative magic at Hollywood now dead, can we soon expect Titanic 3, or Halloween Junior High, film making just doesn't feel free flowing or exciting right now.
I quite liked Denzel Washington's over the top performance, it was quite fun, Sir Derek Jacobi was great for the time he was on screen.
There are two big flaw however, one it's trying to hard to compete with its superior predecessor, everything done here, was done better in the original and secondly, Paul Mescal just wasn't right for the role, he just didn't have the presence of gravitas, Crowe was totally superior in every which way.
The sharks, what can you say about those sharks, proof that this felt like a made up story, the original felt like a tale from history, this felt like it was conjured up during a drunken Saturday night.
It's worth seeing, just don't expect too much. I went on a Saturday night in Cardiff, and there were six of us in the screen, Wicked was packed.
5/10.
Not bad, but not good either, the main question I have, is why, why was this made, is the creative magic at Hollywood now dead, can we soon expect Titanic 3, or Halloween Junior High, film making just doesn't feel free flowing or exciting right now.
I quite liked Denzel Washington's over the top performance, it was quite fun, Sir Derek Jacobi was great for the time he was on screen.
There are two big flaw however, one it's trying to hard to compete with its superior predecessor, everything done here, was done better in the original and secondly, Paul Mescal just wasn't right for the role, he just didn't have the presence of gravitas, Crowe was totally superior in every which way.
The sharks, what can you say about those sharks, proof that this felt like a made up story, the original felt like a tale from history, this felt like it was conjured up during a drunken Saturday night.
It's worth seeing, just don't expect too much. I went on a Saturday night in Cardiff, and there were six of us in the screen, Wicked was packed.
5/10.
Did you know
- TriviaIn an interview with Simon Mayo, Sir Ridley Scott said that he sold the Kingdom of Heaven (2005) set to the Moroccan government for $10 because it was cheaper than dismantling it. He then had to hire it from the same government for use in this movie.
- GoofsNaval battles were only staged in the first year after the Colosseum was built. After the construction of the Hypogeum it was no longer possible to flood the arena.
- Alternate versionsA cut M-rated version was released in cinemas in Australia. At least 3 scenes were trimmed: Cut No. 1 - Lucius (Paul Mescal) beheads his opponent at the first Roman games. The beginning of the scene was trimmed to remove the swords connecting with the head. It cuts into the shot midway to show the stump and a bit of blood spray. Cut No. 2 - Macrinus (Denzel Washington) slashing at the neck of Emperor Geta (Joseph Quinn). The initial long shot of the neck cutting and blood spray is missing. The following close-up shot is zoomed to the left to remove the continued neck slashing and blood spray on the right. Cut No. 3 - Macrinus puts a spike into the ear of Emperor Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). The red blood flowing from his ear is now green/yellow. Despite these cuts, the edited version was later reclassified as MA15+. The initial M rating was given by the studio itself, whereas the MA15+ rating was given by the Australian classification board. It is currently unknown if the uncut version will be released on Australian home video.
- ConnectionsEdited into Gladiator II: Deleted Scenes (2025)
- How long is Gladiator II?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Gladiator 2
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $250,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $172,438,016
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $55,034,715
- Nov 24, 2024
- Gross worldwide
- $462,180,717
- Runtime2 hours 28 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content