Gladiator II (2024)

Gladiator II concludes the mini-series I like to call ‘Films where the last instalment came out 20+ years ago’. Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F, Twisters, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice have all been good instalments and now Gladiator II brings up the rear and this is the one I was unsure about because I didn’t know what they could really do with it but if anyone is going to try and make something of Gladiator II then it would be Ridley Scott. The film takes place 16 years after the first film with Rome now run by Emperors Geta & Caracalla who use tyranny to stay in power with Lucius from the first film on a course to exact revenge on General Acacius but is being used by Macrinus.

GOOD POINTS

Paul Mescal

I was never a big fan of Mescal. I don’t think he’s a bad actor I just don’t think he commands the screen but this film managed to make me change my opinion. Over the course of the film he seems to grow in confidence as an actor and the character becomes more believable as someone who could lead people. His fights were all well done and his final showdown with Macrinus was 

Denzel Washington

I had heard that Washington steals the show and I can confirm that this is true. He doesn't overshadow Mescal too much but he is clearly enjoying playing a manipulative monster and the way that he doesn't raise his voice or get into a fight once apart from shooting and bow and his fight scene with Mescal in the final act. He speaks when he has too and 

Good Action Points

All the scenes in the coliseum were very good and on par if not better than in the first one. The water battle was one i was looking forward to and even 

Violence/Gore was perfectly done

I watched the first film the previous night and worried that the violence and gore would be toned down for a 2024 audience but that was proved wrong because there are several moments where the blood is seen in glorious splendour and they didn’t shy away from it.

Tapped into the previous film enough

Being a sequel it was inevitable that there would be references to the first one but I was surprised how they didn’t go overboard with it. There were instances where they reference Maximus and the opening credits was a nice nod but I think that it was folded into the new film a lot better than I was expecting. I thought it was a very good screenplay from David Scarpa who is a Ridley Scott regular. 

I thought at one point they were going to dig up the figures that got buried at the end of the first one but thankfully they didn’t as it wouldn’t have made sense to anyone who hadn’t watched the first one in recent memory.

BAD POINTS

Pedro Pascal was wasted

The film makes it seem like Pascal was going to be involved a lot more in the story than he ended up being. Essentially his character gives Lucius motivation and they add something that he is romantically involved with Lucilla. But he is behind a plan to take power from the twins but once his plan is revealed in rather simplistic fashion, he becomes almost surplus’s to requirements as far as the plot is concerned. Pascal is a great actor but he deserved better.

OVERALL

This was the best Ridley Scott film since All the Money in the World. The film did a great job in telling the story and I was engaged from start to finish. The film was 2 and a half hours and the run time was perfect. It’s not as good as the first one but as long as you go into this film not expecting that then you will enjoy things a lot more. This is by far my favourite film of the year and that isn’t what I was expecting when I sat down at the cinema.

Napoleon (2023)

Napoleon is perhaps one of the last films of the year that could be my favourite film of the year. Having being at the cinema multiple times this year means I have seen the trailer for this film more times than I have seen any trailer.

The story tells of Napoleon Bonaparte and his rise and inevitable fall. Joaquin Phoenix (winner of Best Actor in the 2019 Movie Addict Awards) plays Napoleon and plays Napoleon as an arrogant but at times flawed person and he never seems to get to the stage of narcissist but does comes across as opinionated. I thought that Vanessa Kirby was really good as Josephine, its a tough role to play and yet she played it as if she was Napleon's equal even though it probably was as 

A lot of people have made a noise about this film lacking in historical accuracy. Here's the thing.....I dont care. If I wanted a more accurate version of Napoleon's life then there are probably 100's of documentaries on various streaming services to satisfying me. I want something more from a cinema experience and want something more for my £12. 

The battle scenes are the best thing about the movie and they are quite tough at times especially the first where a horse gets shot at with a cannonball was particularly tough but if there is one thing that Ridley Scott can do well then its action scenes and they are all really good to watch.

Does the film tell the story about Napoleon in a way that is close to what he was like in real life? No, Does the film do a good job of entertaining and giving a good idea of what he was like? Yes. I think the Napoleon in this film is probably a fair representation of what the man was really like. I think if people go into the film not expecting a historical documentary then they will like it a lot more.

By the way, whilst the film is very good it doesn't quite take top spot but it is a worthy runner up. This is one of Ridley Scott's better films which takes a so so screenplay and elevate it to something worth watching because of the casting.