Laura Skovbo

My Fake Italian heart loved to see Rome. With someone who get the cheekiness of including a Remus and Romulus, reference. I found this more of a comedy, I cannot explain why. Perhaps that the over dramatised and the monkeys was major major and I say MAJOR flop for me, it was there I was like come on, why this was truly unnecessary! made zero sense. Pedro, was a miscast sorry. I did not find him convincing that he suited the role. I do find Paul a great cast but lacked a little more confidence into bringing more vocal roaring effect to Lucius. The fact that the Remus and Romulus twinsies, wannabes. Yeah!!!! where to begin. I wanted them more to be more dominant characters. I wished that the director had created a plot line for them to ACTUALLY be in the ring fighting for their honour to protect their empire. Which leads me to the fact that "their majesties!" are a completely false term for emperors. Since they are not kings, (that was what got Julius Caesar killed 'exclaiming to be a king, before Augustus got to the term emperor!) Lucius is not a prince of Rome. The Roman ideology is about siege, honour, victory, and not to be of Godly claim to life, but to fight for the power to powering over power. So now, you fight for the emperor title, not given by birthright. Augustus wasn't Julius Caesars child but a nephew. Brutus was adopted. He only got Cesaraion and Julia as biological children. The historical factors and realities are not presented as well as in the first film. Which made this movie downward. I know it's fiction, but if its having social realism as sub-genre, then it has to be based historically correct, must be 95% right in terms of the real time of Rome. Gladiator II failed to be truly historically correct. There can also only be one Emperor. Not two, legally at the same time. But I watched it with blindness, and I say the excitement was the only positive of it. Which why it gets 2.