Gladiator 2 (2024).

A quarter of a century has passed since the Gladiator premiered all over the world. I was 24 years old at the time, working in Singapore. I had just started taming myself as a cinephile, a movie nut, or a celluloid freak, if you will.

 I had watched Russell Crowe in LA Confidential before and saw a magazine cover proclaiming that he is the next Brando. You kidding me? I watched Gladiator later, and my jaw dropped. He is a mix of the classic Hollywood stars like Heston and Mitchum, plus Brando and de Niro. The dude has it.

 Plus, he made me cry. I cry only to Tamil films starring Sivaji Ganesan, Kamal Haasan, or Rajinikanth. But Russell Crowe? Dammit, man!

 Now, fast forward to the 25-year mark, and the same director, Ridley Scott, released a sequel. A goddamned sequel. Nobody asked for it. The hell is wrong with him? When it was announced, I just facepalmed and said, it ain't gonna work.

 And watching it, it exactly was how all of us (yeah, many were facepalming to the point that their mothers couldn't recognise the kids) had imagined. It's not as good as the first.

 But is it bad? I never liked almost all of what Ridley Scott has directed since the first Gladiator. Even Napoleon was a snoozefest.

 Now that Crowe's character kicked the bucket in the first film, I had nothing to look forward to in this film. I told myself that it's going to stink so bad that I would crawl my way back towards the movie theater exit.

 But.

 Yes. But.

Lately,  I had this habit of watching important films on big screen right after lunch. Yeah, you get sleepy, and will the film engage you? My favourite director's film failed that test.

 I had pasta, Marinara, then apple pie. I walked in, knowing well that I was going to have a great nap. Early YouTube reviews were, well, negative. So what.

 But whaddya know. I was engaged. Marinara failed, and so did the goddamned apple pie.

 You see, when they announced that Denzel Washington was gonna be in this movie, I went, “Oh, come on!”. I mean, he is a great actor, but he ain't no Meryll Streep, the chameleon of a performer. Washington basically does a lot of grimacing, lip-smacking, shit, and stuff. No. He is more of an Eastwood kinda performer, limited but knows how to draw the gun and hit the target.

 Yet, I can see why Scott chose him. Thanks to Washington's performance in Training Day (2001), dry, negative, and, as they say in the industry, typed against cast, he was a triumph in this film. He is the livewire. Without him, there is no film.

 Look, I had always had this opinion, if I may, that Denzel is overrated. He is mostly himself, but in a classic sort of way, say, Steve McQueen—a great actor who always brings magic to each film.

 And that is exactly what he brought to the film. Take him out, and the film collapses like a frameless circus tent.

 There are one too many Collesuem fight scenes, which may bore some out, but they are intriguing. All the onscreen performers did their best, and I was so overjoyed to see Connie Nielsen again. Never aged (there is a flashback scene where I suppose they did about 17 minutes of work to de-age her). I fell in love with her in the first film, and well, I injured myself this time. Oh, she's a great actress too.

 The Mescal and Pascal dudes did their job well. I think the whole thing about connecting to the first film is a bit of a whacky con job just to satisfy the fans of the earlier film, with even clips with Crowe shoved in (it could have been dealt with with just dialogues alone), but what the hell?

 Yet, I liked it. It's not going to be a classic like the 1999 flick, no way. But watched on its own, it has its own merit. It's alright. But unlike the first one, I do not think I would wanna rewatch it. And despite that, 
I shall just give it a thumbs up.