Chuck Berry
Gold Member
I liked it. the rhino battle, the opening war scene, and the amazing naval collesuem battle were the highlights. Ridley at the peak of his powers.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d1489/d14890fac57e7e2dcda39db4b878b4e81496ee8f" alt="kF9tCeo.gif"
I liked it. the rhino battle, the opening war scene, and the amazing naval collesuem battle were the highlights. Ridley at the peak of his powers.
Even if it isn't as good as the first, I wouldn't entirely describe it as a pale copy. The sequel's emphasis on the Roman empire on the brink of collapse, the corrupt hedonism of the elites, and the portrayal of social disparity and civil unrest are what it has going for it, more so than the characters and overall story imo. The action wasn't bad either. I wish it had been more brutal, but that's just my personal taste.What the original had going for it was a charismatic protagonist AND antoganist. This movie has neither so it feel like a pale copy of it's predecessor overall.
He has tiger bloodIt's WILD that this guy is 86 years old.
Danzel was great but miscast. i dont buy that an african would have so much power that he would be controlling the senators but he was good in the movie. way better than the lead.
So they had to resort to questionable history so the film could be made, so what?![]()
Who was the real Macrinus, Rome’s North African emperor?
In "Gladiator II," Denzel Washington plays Macrinus, the namesake of a historical emperor with a thrilling story.www.nationalgeographic.com
I think this is one of those movies you either watch it big screen or dont bother. Even if you know it might be meh, you got to go big.I keep putting off heading to the theater, since I know the history will be ridiculous and Ridley Scott has declined sharply. Sounds like a spectacle for the big screen though.
It’s got some great action setpieces no one else knows how to shoot anymore. They demand to be seen on the big screen.I keep putting off heading to the theater, since I know the history will be ridiculous and Ridley Scott has declined sharply. Sounds like a spectacle for the big screen though.
Roger roger. I'll go see it in IMAX and leave my brain at the door as much as I can.It’s got some great action setpieces no one else knows how to shoot anymore. They demand to be seen on the big screen.
I tried watching napoleon on TV in 4k hdr and the war scenes just didn’t click the same as they did on the big screen.
It is complete fiction so don’t go in expecting any historical accuracy.
I keep putting off heading to the theater, since I know the history will be ridiculous and Ridley Scott has declined sharply. Sounds like a spectacle for the big screen though.
The movie is not good. It has nonsensical writing. Stupid lines to move the story forward and a couple of action scenes that are not even necessary. I sayI keep putting off heading to the theater, since I know the history will be ridiculous and Ridley Scott has declined sharply. Sounds like a spectacle for the big screen though.
Denzel Washington is not North African.![]()
Who was the real Macrinus, Rome’s North African emperor?
In "Gladiator II," Denzel Washington plays Macrinus, the namesake of a historical emperor with a thrilling story.www.nationalgeographic.com
I wasnt talking about Denzel Washington, It was a clarification that the character Denzel played is based on a historical person!Denzel Washington is not North African.
There's a huge fucking desert between North Africa (which was, up until the Muslim conquests, essentially part of "Europe") and the region where Denzel Washington's ancestors came from. Don't be disingenuous.