Hmmm, I can see why they'd want to make damned sure Honest Trailers and Pitch Meeting were nowhere near the press list.

Also those clips are designed to people who already have seen the movie. They're not reviews or recommendations for those who haven't seen it yet.

Apparently, this is the Regal Monday Mystery Movie for tonight

https://www.reddit.com/r/RegalUnlimi...ember_18_2024/

It was the AMC surprise movie as well, just saw it. If you liked Gladiator, you should like this one. They are quite similar actually. I thought the cast was good. Denzel stealing every scene. In some moments, Paul sounds just like Russell and that was pretty cool.

Opening the same day as WICKED.

From a comment on YouTube:
"Barbenheimer" all over again. Wickedator? Gladicked?

They jokingly went with Glicked earlier this year. All I could think of was

Every time I saw a trailer for Gladiator II, I was reminded of the fake trailer for Gandhi II in UHF.

Saw this and enjoyed it. Maybe its me but this movie felt somewhere halfway between a remake and a sequel. not going to win any oscars but was very entertaining.

Caught the IMAX fan event at AMC tonight. This is what they gave out. The poster and thumb.

Anyway, as far as the movie goes, fun and moves pretty fast. Doesn’t feel like 2 hours and 28 minutes.

But there are some issues. One hilariously absurd sequence involves a pool/water tank. I won’t spoil it, but you’ll just go, really?

The action and fights were pretty good. The opening battle sequence was great.

But, the villains I found a little weak. Denzel chewed up the scenes he was in, but he ended up becoming kind of a lame villain. Just a power hungry weasel. Then there are the brothers. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle dumb.

I would give it a B. Mescal was really good and at points he embodied Russell Crowe.

I thought it was okay. Ties in better to the original than I thought it would. It's about 15 minutes too long but it had good battle and combat scenes. I also like that Lucius wasn't the total badass that Maximus was - even though I know he wouldn't, he always seemed on the cusp of losing any fight he was in.

I would have liked to get to know the other gladiators a bit more and to see more of what the main trainer dude was doing to make everyone hate him. Fewer Roman political scenes and more with the gladiators themselves would have helped.

I'd give it a B too.

I saw an advance screening of this a couple of days ago and as the old saying goes I was entertained. Like many sequels, it wasn't really necessary but a solid movie overall. I actually liked Denzel a lot and thought he was a great villian, the two emperors just a storyline tool and more annoying than anything. The water battle is based on historical fact but then exaggerated by a ridiculous amount. Would recommend seeing in a theater.

Caught this one today and was I entertained? Yes. Was this sequel necessary? Nope, not in the slightest. It starts out more like a pointless remake, then it becomes a pointless sequel, then it seemed to turn into a Roman Empire version of Training Day in the final act. I agree that the villains were weak overall aside from Denzel, who gave a great performance despite what he was given.

The problem I had is that the sequel just seemed to not have the practical effects effort put into the first one. No real tigers or animals, just a bunch of CG crap. I could also tell from having read one of the original drafts of the first Gladiator script that all of the arena sequences were just things written for the first movie but discarded in the final version.

Had tickets to this, then when I got to the theatre I saw that they were playing The Third Man. Refunded my ticket and saw some Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten instead. I feel I made the right call.

Listened to the Going Rogue podcast episode on the history of this project. For as much shit as people have given that premise, I got to say I think it sounds pretty bad ass on its own (divorced from the original film).

You mean the sequel Nick Cave wrote? It sounded like something Garth Ennis would have dreamt. I would have loved to have seen it happen.

It has spectacle, and I guess there is some entertainment value in spectacle, but it gets so ridiculous and many of the performances are so over the top (including Denzel's) that I just ultimately didn't like it.

Also, the movie has a dumb ending, and in order for the events of this movie to occur they have to in some way unravel the ending of the first movie. It's not worth that.

Apart from solid acting (Pedro Pascal did look bored at times), this was pretty pointless. Felt very cheap and claustrophobic compared to the original.

Was I entertained? Yes. Was it flawed? Very. The CGI was stunningly poor for a movie of this scale, especially anything involving animals. The two twin emperors who served as the antagonists were corny and lame, Phoenix's Commodus was a much better villain. That said, the cast was great and there's some good action.

The 1st film is far superior to this one, imo.

Just got back from this and it was fine. Nothing spectacular outside of the opening invasion and the cool rhino sequence. People are complaining about the notion of them filling the coliseum with water and throwing sharks in there. That show on Peacock "For those about to die" did something similar but it was with crocodiles.

Mescal sounds like Gerard Butler without the Scottish accent.

Agreed. I felt it was just a lame rehash of the terrific first film. It dragged on too, feeling longer than its runtime. Just no reason for this movie to have been made, really. Just watch the first one which has a perfect 3-act delivery with a magical ending.

While I felt my expectations were in check this unfortunately still fell short for me. Right away things felt off with the credits(which looks suspiciously AI generated), of all the ways to start with an elevated, reverential tone - that was not it. I was disappointed more of the original themes weren't used in the score. And unfortunately both my Dad and I didn't think Denzel was a fit.

I'd be willing to check out a longer cut if that comes, it would probably help flesh some things out. But you're still left with a movie that already feels long because you're so uninterested in it.

I guess it's just me, but I didn't find this movie too long at all. It moved pretty briskly for me.

I know it's just some opinions, but I guess it's getting harder for some to sit in movies over 2 plus hours.

I have a back problem that makes sitting in a theater over two hours very uncomfortable, so I won't go see anything over that length. Even then, I have to hope for a theater like the Angelika in Manhattan where there's space behind the back row so I can stand up for a few minutes at regular intervals and not disturb anyone. Not every theater has that kind of seating plan.