Igor_Husak
Joined Nov 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings323
Igor_Husak's rating
Reviews29
Igor_Husak's rating
I bet you're expecting two things from Gladiator II:
01 A revenge-justice narrative like the first film
02 Thrilling action scenes backed by a big budget
I didn't expect the first, but if I'd known the second would also fall short, I would think twice before stepping into the theater.
Ridley Scott can create films unburdened by his reputation and previous work, but he can also cannibalize his legacy, as he did with the prequels and sequels of Alien.
He did the same with Gladiator II, directing it like it was the last thing on Earth he wanted to do.
The first Gladiator wasn't without its flaws.
It was filmed without a solid script but with a master director at its helm and a lead actor who covered the rest.
Russell Crowe's performance carries Gladiator. Considering this is an action film, I regard it as one of the finest performances in film history.
Paul Mescal might be a good actor in "quieter" roles, but not for epic ones. At one point, Denzel Washington describes Mescal's character as someone full of thirst for revenge. It couldn't be further from the truth-he's a reasonable man skilled with a sword.
Denzel's performance is the best in the film, but for some reason, he's got an accent from American Gangster. If that was meant to signal he's from the far side of the Roman Empire, it didn't work.
The crazy brothers try to look like lunatic emperors. Joaquin Phoenix did that by doing his best to pretend normal.
Connie Nielsen and Derek Jacobi reprise their roles, and that's the main reason they're in this film.
The story drags for too long, serving up a sandwich of dialogue and battles...
...Battles that feel like we're seeing the intro to each but never get fully developed epic scenes like those in the original.
Weren't we at least entitled to see Mescal and Pascal, initially on opposite sides, battling sword-to-sword to save the empire?
I'm usually fine with CGI, but the one used here looked fake in many scenes, failing to merge with the locations.
Unlike Top Gun: Maverick, which copied the original shot-for-shot but enriched it, Gladiator II follows the same formula as its famous predecessor but does everything worse.
The best parts of the film are the flashbacks with Russell Crowe. They're a painstaking reminder of how the original surpasses Gladiator II in every department.
If you're deciding whether to watch this one, the best thing to do is grab a glass of wine and watch General Maximus Decimus Meridius one more time.
There's really nothing in Gladiator II worth your time.
01 A revenge-justice narrative like the first film
02 Thrilling action scenes backed by a big budget
I didn't expect the first, but if I'd known the second would also fall short, I would think twice before stepping into the theater.
Ridley Scott can create films unburdened by his reputation and previous work, but he can also cannibalize his legacy, as he did with the prequels and sequels of Alien.
He did the same with Gladiator II, directing it like it was the last thing on Earth he wanted to do.
The first Gladiator wasn't without its flaws.
It was filmed without a solid script but with a master director at its helm and a lead actor who covered the rest.
Russell Crowe's performance carries Gladiator. Considering this is an action film, I regard it as one of the finest performances in film history.
Paul Mescal might be a good actor in "quieter" roles, but not for epic ones. At one point, Denzel Washington describes Mescal's character as someone full of thirst for revenge. It couldn't be further from the truth-he's a reasonable man skilled with a sword.
Denzel's performance is the best in the film, but for some reason, he's got an accent from American Gangster. If that was meant to signal he's from the far side of the Roman Empire, it didn't work.
The crazy brothers try to look like lunatic emperors. Joaquin Phoenix did that by doing his best to pretend normal.
Connie Nielsen and Derek Jacobi reprise their roles, and that's the main reason they're in this film.
The story drags for too long, serving up a sandwich of dialogue and battles...
...Battles that feel like we're seeing the intro to each but never get fully developed epic scenes like those in the original.
Weren't we at least entitled to see Mescal and Pascal, initially on opposite sides, battling sword-to-sword to save the empire?
I'm usually fine with CGI, but the one used here looked fake in many scenes, failing to merge with the locations.
Unlike Top Gun: Maverick, which copied the original shot-for-shot but enriched it, Gladiator II follows the same formula as its famous predecessor but does everything worse.
The best parts of the film are the flashbacks with Russell Crowe. They're a painstaking reminder of how the original surpasses Gladiator II in every department.
If you're deciding whether to watch this one, the best thing to do is grab a glass of wine and watch General Maximus Decimus Meridius one more time.
There's really nothing in Gladiator II worth your time.
The 1960s are portrayed through visuals and music that make you feel nostalgic for a time you never lived in, but the catch is-Hanks never plays that card.
Instead, that's just the icing on the cake, and the core of it all is young people on a fun but also demanding road to becoming stars, and possibly fading away before they actually become real stars.
What made me upgrade my rating from an 8 to a 9 is the fact that, without trying to be larger than life or relying on drugs, sex, or a wild protagonist, Hanks manages to take you behind the curtains of show business. It makes you wonder if the emotions the media tries to provoke are one big hoax, all without being judgmental.
Is there any authenticity left?
He suggests there is, but there's a price to pay for it as well.
There's a particularly nice scene between one of the band members and his jazz role model, whom he gets to meet for a jam session in the studio.
As the role model explains, "Bands come and go," you get a sense you're watching a film about much more than just being fun and entertaining (though it's definitely that too).
That Thing You Do delivers a warm story with great storytelling, characters, and music, offering more depth than you'd expect from a movie about four guys and a girl who made a pop hit.
What more could you wish for?
Just that Tom Hanks would direct more often.
Instead, that's just the icing on the cake, and the core of it all is young people on a fun but also demanding road to becoming stars, and possibly fading away before they actually become real stars.
What made me upgrade my rating from an 8 to a 9 is the fact that, without trying to be larger than life or relying on drugs, sex, or a wild protagonist, Hanks manages to take you behind the curtains of show business. It makes you wonder if the emotions the media tries to provoke are one big hoax, all without being judgmental.
Is there any authenticity left?
He suggests there is, but there's a price to pay for it as well.
There's a particularly nice scene between one of the band members and his jazz role model, whom he gets to meet for a jam session in the studio.
As the role model explains, "Bands come and go," you get a sense you're watching a film about much more than just being fun and entertaining (though it's definitely that too).
That Thing You Do delivers a warm story with great storytelling, characters, and music, offering more depth than you'd expect from a movie about four guys and a girl who made a pop hit.
What more could you wish for?
Just that Tom Hanks would direct more often.
Yes, it's a classic romantic storytelling set up but it takes more than that to play it right - execution. And that is done with charm and the crucial ingredient - Hayek - Perry chemistry.
Perry's lines are natural with a touch of humor and a pinch of irony, but not as strong as his Chandler character from Friends. There are layers under the main jokes you will appreciate.
And just as with best romantic comedy there is a bit of a life lesson scattered across the script such as:
"You're the best thing that happened to me I never thought I might be looking for."
Anybody looking for a 100% reality could just bury this film, but that's not the point.
Good romantic comedy goes over the top of realistic life situations to do what genre films are supposed to do - entertain us and give us a boost to live our little lives better.
Alex and Isabel represent the opposite that attracts, fights but eventually everything turns out fine.
This film stands out from typical romantic flicks by showcasing their challenges and differences, not just resolving them with repetitive declarations of love.
Imagine a girl who chooses not to abort...
...a guy who falls in love (feeling) and eventually works hard to make it work (love as a verb).
...spice it up with good humor and
...successfully plays with white guy Mexican girl cliche.
Oh, and imagine the final magic hour continuous shot that involves a wedding, kiss and sunset you never expect to see in romantic comedy.
Shout out to the director Andy Tennant.
When asked to confirm Friends was his favorite project Matthew Perry said
"There is this film with Salma Hayek I've done and I like it a lot."
Following Perry's passing, Salma Hayek shared memories of their special connection during filming, which seemed to echo the genuine friendship portrayed on screen.
"Fools Rush In" stands out by precisely not standing out.
It's a testament to Matthew Perry's talent-perhaps not remembered as the greatest actor, but as one with a rare ability: to make us laugh and warm our hearts.
And sometimes, that's exactly what we need to brighten our day.
Here's to more comedies that achieve just that.
Perry's lines are natural with a touch of humor and a pinch of irony, but not as strong as his Chandler character from Friends. There are layers under the main jokes you will appreciate.
And just as with best romantic comedy there is a bit of a life lesson scattered across the script such as:
"You're the best thing that happened to me I never thought I might be looking for."
Anybody looking for a 100% reality could just bury this film, but that's not the point.
Good romantic comedy goes over the top of realistic life situations to do what genre films are supposed to do - entertain us and give us a boost to live our little lives better.
Alex and Isabel represent the opposite that attracts, fights but eventually everything turns out fine.
This film stands out from typical romantic flicks by showcasing their challenges and differences, not just resolving them with repetitive declarations of love.
Imagine a girl who chooses not to abort...
...a guy who falls in love (feeling) and eventually works hard to make it work (love as a verb).
...spice it up with good humor and
...successfully plays with white guy Mexican girl cliche.
Oh, and imagine the final magic hour continuous shot that involves a wedding, kiss and sunset you never expect to see in romantic comedy.
Shout out to the director Andy Tennant.
When asked to confirm Friends was his favorite project Matthew Perry said
"There is this film with Salma Hayek I've done and I like it a lot."
Following Perry's passing, Salma Hayek shared memories of their special connection during filming, which seemed to echo the genuine friendship portrayed on screen.
"Fools Rush In" stands out by precisely not standing out.
It's a testament to Matthew Perry's talent-perhaps not remembered as the greatest actor, but as one with a rare ability: to make us laugh and warm our hearts.
And sometimes, that's exactly what we need to brighten our day.
Here's to more comedies that achieve just that.