I was fortunate to attend a Cinemark 'Secret Movie' Monday night on the hunch that it might be either Wicked or Gladiator II, and was stoked when Scott Free Productions popped on the screen. Woo-Hoo!

**No Spoilers**

Quite the spectacle! Never a dull moment and the writing was pretty decent except for the obligatory monologues and speeches. So very typical of any historic action/drama. Very clunky.

The SFX were top-notch except when it came to certain animals (nuff said). There are certain creatures that, so far, just haven't been nailed with CGI. I think films like this would be more convincing and less suspect if on film. Digital is too crisp/clean to keep me in the moment when faulty CGI presents itself. We rewatched the first Gladiator and it just felt more 'real' with the grain of film.

The acting, as a whole, was very good, though Denzel just seemed out of place in his role. Plus, his earing seemed to float all over his earlobe. Come on, man, they're paying you millions. Put a hole in the old lobe.

My recommend? If you loved the original, you'll be satisfied, for sure.

Deliberating over whether to see this.
I read about the inclusion of certain animals the other day and I have to say it was a bit off-putting.

And, I heard that Denzel steals the show. Apparently not your opinion, as it was his earring that does instead.  

Thanks for the review, John!

Hoping for the worst, but honestly expecting the worst. The original is one of my all-time favorites. Denzel seems incredibly out of place here.

It may be worth watching simply due to having a better lead than the original. Gladiator was a typically great-looking mediocre Ridley Scott movie further weighed-down by a crappy and forgettable "star".

Quoted from Drongo Bum It may be worth watching simply due to having a better lead than the original. Gladiator was a typically great-looking mediocre Ridley Scott movie further weighed-down by a crappy and forgettable "star".

How very dare you!
Yes, that Oscar win must have been rigged.
I'd understand if you were talking Robin Hood.

It's just that I don't rate him as an especially competent actor. People have chosen to love the guy for some reason but the truth is it isn't for his acting ability.

What for then? He has a great voice, a great screen presence.
You need to watch Romper Stomper. The only thing I have against him is he's a Kiwi, but I can live with that.

He's not a great actor. He's often or usually cast as Americans despite the fact his American dialects are entirely unconvincing.*

And it was irritating (to me) to watch and hear a very mediocre actor play a Spanish general in the Roman army speaking with an Antipodean accent.

So, in conclusion, I win again.

* In Crowe's defense, he's hardly the only one guilty of this.

Hmm... If the original is a classical composition, this one felt more like punk rock. Is that even a thingy anymore?   Anywaz, nowhere near as emotional or well-written as the first entry, but yea... it's good popcorn flick. No review coming...

Quoted from ghost and_ghostie gal Hmm... If the original is a classical composition, this one felt more like punk rock. Is that even a thingy anymore?   Anywaz, nowhere near as emotional or well-written as the first entry, but yea... it's good popcorn flick. No review coming...

Hello, gurl! Yeah, the more I read about it the more I think: mildly entertaining but won't live up to the original. Will probably still see it, but I won't be rushing out the door.