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.
Ratings874
AfricanBro's rating
Reviews469
AfricanBro's rating
Midway through the movie, I suddenly remembered Jude Law is British-he's so convincing in this role. His performance, along with the rest of the cast, was excellent. Nicholas Hoult, in particular, was a standout. I couldn't have imagined him as a cult leader, having mostly seen him in quirky or sci-fi roles, but this film showcased his range brilliantly. Tye Sheridan was fantastic as always, and it was great to see him in a bigger project again. I really liked when he was upset with the FBI's incompetence. Jurnee Smollett also delivered a strong performance.
One scene that really stuck with me was the discovery of the body. I think it's my "favorite" one; it felt disturbingly real and visceral, especially with the character using his hands to dig up the grave instead of a shovel. That detail made it feel grounded, almost like you were right there, literally watching dirty work.
The pacing is slow, but it builds towards a more gripping third act. The motel shootout was shock, and it's in the final act where everything comes together. I think you usually have it in the back of your head, absentmindedly even, that the main characters will make it so the theatre gasped. The film touches on themes of hate , and it's always ironic and unsettling to hear people using the guise of faith to spread such. It was pretty interesting to me that the book referenced in the story is connected to real-world events like January 6 as well.
While I wasn't blown away, the movie met my expectations-which were sorta high. It's well-made and believable, even if it leans on familiar archetypes and tropes: the hate-filled ideology, the cult dynamics, the people working to dismantle it. So while nothing in the movie really surprises or blows you away, it's that familiarity makes the story feel real because characters like these do exist.
In the end, while it didn't resonate with me on a deeper level or stick with me after the credits rolled, it's a solid film with strong performances and a compelling, relevant narrative.
One scene that really stuck with me was the discovery of the body. I think it's my "favorite" one; it felt disturbingly real and visceral, especially with the character using his hands to dig up the grave instead of a shovel. That detail made it feel grounded, almost like you were right there, literally watching dirty work.
The pacing is slow, but it builds towards a more gripping third act. The motel shootout was shock, and it's in the final act where everything comes together. I think you usually have it in the back of your head, absentmindedly even, that the main characters will make it so the theatre gasped. The film touches on themes of hate , and it's always ironic and unsettling to hear people using the guise of faith to spread such. It was pretty interesting to me that the book referenced in the story is connected to real-world events like January 6 as well.
While I wasn't blown away, the movie met my expectations-which were sorta high. It's well-made and believable, even if it leans on familiar archetypes and tropes: the hate-filled ideology, the cult dynamics, the people working to dismantle it. So while nothing in the movie really surprises or blows you away, it's that familiarity makes the story feel real because characters like these do exist.
In the end, while it didn't resonate with me on a deeper level or stick with me after the credits rolled, it's a solid film with strong performances and a compelling, relevant narrative.
This was one of the more surprising Mystery Movie screenings, given its scale and lack of need for extra promotion. When I saw the time stamp 2hrs30 I thought it would be "The end" or "Queer", I was excited when I realized it was Gladiator 2. However, my mixed feelings about Ridley Scott's previous film, Napoleon, left me cautiously optimistic.
Paul Mescal as Lucius was an amazing. I loved loved him in "Normal People", I couldn't picture him in an action-heavy role, but he delivered. It reminded me of Robert Pattinson's transformation into Batman-unexpected but brilliant. His performance stood out, even in the shadow of such a massive legacy.
Denzel Washington brought charisma and seemed to enjoy himself, while Pedro Pascal and Paul Mescal's fight was a highlight for me. The action was brutal, intense, and felt grounded-swords looked heavy, and battles felt more real because of it. That said, the baboon fight and sharks in the water felt a bit much. Most other sequences, though, were thrilling. The pacing was better than Napoleon, but a few moments in the first half flirted with being too slow.
Dialogue was a mixed bag-many conversations felt too brief for me, cutting away just as they were getting interesting. Left me wishing for more depth, especially when it came to the relationships and political intrigue. The predictable plot-revenge-driven, echoing the first film-also dampened the experience. It felt like history repeating itself, making the sequel feel unnecessary at times. However it's great to have a new Roman Empire movie. These feel sort of old, like a phase Hollywood had in the early 2000's. Same with movies about mythical titans and gods that came around the 2000's too.
Visually, the film was spectacular-costumes and sets captured the grandeur of ancient Rome beautifully. While the epic moments were visually stunning, they often lacked emotional weight. The film didn't always earn its big scenes, jumping too quickly without sufficient build-up. For example, Lucius leading men into battle felt unearned, and the emotional beats-like crying scenes-felt forced. None of the crying felt real.
The emotional moments in the film just didn't hit it for me. Many scenes felt unearned, lacking the depth needed to make them believable. The storyline closely mirrors that of the original movie like I said: a wife is killed, leading to a character who becomes a slave and then a gladiator, driven by revenge. Although this sequel takes place years after the first film, it fails to provide sufficient backstory about the events that transpired in between, leaving me indifferent to the characters, whether they were heroes or villains, and the political dynamics at play. The film merely skims over some critical plot points, almost as if it's dismissing them. For instance, Paul's swift acceptance of his mother's identity felt rushed and underdeveloped. Just like that he believed it?? While the film runs over two and a half hours, it still lacks the necessary depth in its narrative. The emperors too, are given little backstory, making them seem more like petulant children than true tyrants.
Despite that, I still think the film is kinda fun. The performances of the actors, the grand scale of the production, and the thrilling action sequences made it feel better, somewhat shadows the copycat storyline and occasional narrative clutter. Although I loved the actors' performances, I didn't feel a strong connection to the characters or find myself rooting for them. Kept it from reaching the heights of its predecessor. But I was still entertained.
Paul Mescal as Lucius was an amazing. I loved loved him in "Normal People", I couldn't picture him in an action-heavy role, but he delivered. It reminded me of Robert Pattinson's transformation into Batman-unexpected but brilliant. His performance stood out, even in the shadow of such a massive legacy.
Denzel Washington brought charisma and seemed to enjoy himself, while Pedro Pascal and Paul Mescal's fight was a highlight for me. The action was brutal, intense, and felt grounded-swords looked heavy, and battles felt more real because of it. That said, the baboon fight and sharks in the water felt a bit much. Most other sequences, though, were thrilling. The pacing was better than Napoleon, but a few moments in the first half flirted with being too slow.
Dialogue was a mixed bag-many conversations felt too brief for me, cutting away just as they were getting interesting. Left me wishing for more depth, especially when it came to the relationships and political intrigue. The predictable plot-revenge-driven, echoing the first film-also dampened the experience. It felt like history repeating itself, making the sequel feel unnecessary at times. However it's great to have a new Roman Empire movie. These feel sort of old, like a phase Hollywood had in the early 2000's. Same with movies about mythical titans and gods that came around the 2000's too.
Visually, the film was spectacular-costumes and sets captured the grandeur of ancient Rome beautifully. While the epic moments were visually stunning, they often lacked emotional weight. The film didn't always earn its big scenes, jumping too quickly without sufficient build-up. For example, Lucius leading men into battle felt unearned, and the emotional beats-like crying scenes-felt forced. None of the crying felt real.
The emotional moments in the film just didn't hit it for me. Many scenes felt unearned, lacking the depth needed to make them believable. The storyline closely mirrors that of the original movie like I said: a wife is killed, leading to a character who becomes a slave and then a gladiator, driven by revenge. Although this sequel takes place years after the first film, it fails to provide sufficient backstory about the events that transpired in between, leaving me indifferent to the characters, whether they were heroes or villains, and the political dynamics at play. The film merely skims over some critical plot points, almost as if it's dismissing them. For instance, Paul's swift acceptance of his mother's identity felt rushed and underdeveloped. Just like that he believed it?? While the film runs over two and a half hours, it still lacks the necessary depth in its narrative. The emperors too, are given little backstory, making them seem more like petulant children than true tyrants.
Despite that, I still think the film is kinda fun. The performances of the actors, the grand scale of the production, and the thrilling action sequences made it feel better, somewhat shadows the copycat storyline and occasional narrative clutter. Although I loved the actors' performances, I didn't feel a strong connection to the characters or find myself rooting for them. Kept it from reaching the heights of its predecessor. But I was still entertained.
I liked how the opening title cards were seamlessly integrated into the movie. Right from the start, I was curious about where the story would go, it jumped around a bit in the beginning, which made me curious to see Homeless guy, the art, how everything was going to gel together. It was a mystery movie showing and I didn't even know of "Exhibiting forgiveness" at all.
I have to admit, I didn't personally like the art pieces. It bothered me because certain parts of the story and the main character's emotions were conveyed through the artwork. The director and writer, Titus Kaphar, is an artist himself, so I'm not sure if the art featured was his own work.
I recognized André Holland from season 2 of "The Leftovers," so I was excited to see him in a leading role, and the kid from "Let the Right One In" was also great. The film is deliberately paced, beautifully shot, and the lighting stood out-especially in a time where so many movies are visually dark. It was refreshing to see vibrant color on the screen.
That said, despite how bright and vibrant it is the movie tells a tragic story, and at times, it's tough to watch. It deals with themes of generational trauma and forgiveness within families. However, it's not the kind of film that leaves you emotionally wrecked-it avoids being overly sentimental or preachy. It's not as heavy handed as it could been. It presents characters that are compelling and make you genuinely interested in their stories. In the end I think it's a decent movie, not too memorable because it's not the type of movie that sticks with me. It wasn't super climactic and I think it's more "enjoyable" for people interested in the subject matter.
I have to admit, I didn't personally like the art pieces. It bothered me because certain parts of the story and the main character's emotions were conveyed through the artwork. The director and writer, Titus Kaphar, is an artist himself, so I'm not sure if the art featured was his own work.
I recognized André Holland from season 2 of "The Leftovers," so I was excited to see him in a leading role, and the kid from "Let the Right One In" was also great. The film is deliberately paced, beautifully shot, and the lighting stood out-especially in a time where so many movies are visually dark. It was refreshing to see vibrant color on the screen.
That said, despite how bright and vibrant it is the movie tells a tragic story, and at times, it's tough to watch. It deals with themes of generational trauma and forgiveness within families. However, it's not the kind of film that leaves you emotionally wrecked-it avoids being overly sentimental or preachy. It's not as heavy handed as it could been. It presents characters that are compelling and make you genuinely interested in their stories. In the end I think it's a decent movie, not too memorable because it's not the type of movie that sticks with me. It wasn't super climactic and I think it's more "enjoyable" for people interested in the subject matter.