I was really not a fan either. I think they used the wrong lenses and film speed.
If you make a big historical epic keep your battlegrounds in grassy fields and lay off the tricky lenses.
I liked the original film, and I'm not a fan of historical epics since most of them are dull, slow and have boring characters. This film had a lot of colorful actors, good pacing & cinematography, plus really impressive battle scenes.
shareSame! The "Sword & Sandal" type are just not my thing but the film was pretty darn excellent.
Yep. Gladiator likely used Braveheart as an inspiration since that film became a success because it was a historical epic that focused on the personal nature of the characters and story (that the audience could invest in) while at the same time it still kept everything moving along fast with lots of battles, romance, betrayal and war etc.
Making a film of this type dull and boring is the cardinal sin of film making. That's why the original Gladiator stands out.
It will probably be mostly a remake of the first one. Same story, just change a couple of names. If you didn't like the first one you should definitely avoid. I'm going in with low expectations.
shareFirst one is one of the greatest films of all time
shareThis is closer to the truth, but regardless of how good a movie is, someone is going to poo-poo it. Even "Citizen Kane" has its haters.
shareAgreed.
It really is the greatest historical epic film ever made. It's laughable that Hollywood is doing a sequel to it 24 years later. Gladiator isn't Top Gun. It isn't some popcorn film that you can make a belated sequel to where you can tell a similar story to the original and have a good time with member berries.
The fact that Gladiator 2 has Lucius Verus forced to fight as a gladiator is such a monumentally contrived idea.
It's an adult movie.
It's about a person losing everything and having to deal with it.
If you are young, sheltered, etc you may not get that the drama is about losing everything you earned and having to deal with it.
I understand that.
There are several dramas out that with a similar plot that are very interesting and compelling.
This one isn’t.
And it’s an action film too.
It fails as a drama and action film.
I didn’t care about the characters or their struggles and the action sequences were tedious at best.
The Running Man had the exact same plot three years before (a military leader refuses to follow an order and is punished by the government by having to compete as a gladiator for the entertainment of the masses) and did a much better job with it.
Also, insulting people who don’t like the film by calling them “young and sheltered” just because they don’t agree with you is a cheap shot and immediately classifies your comment as worthless.
An issue with you is that you don't explain your stance, so what you're saying means nothing.
For instance, if you say, "I don't like apples, they are garbage" that is not a critique of apples, it's just a dumb opinion.
The film is fairly long with a lot of character development. It also has action that no normal human would want to be involved it and it's based on real life events, gladiators.
So, you don't find it dramatic that a top level person has their family murdered, then is turned into a slave, then has to fight others in a perverted cultural ritual, well why not?
You can't imagine yourself in a gladiator arena and how insane that would be?
Why not?
Posting you don't like something because you don't like it is moronic, but is common.
Why bother?
I explained why I thought it was a boring drama and action film.
Reread my post.