Ridley Scott's “Gladiator II” continues to dominate the box office, recently crossing the $400 million worldwide milestone, and receiving high praise from notable filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, who deemed it his “favorite film of 2024.” However, not everyone shares this enthusiasm. Legendary director Oliver Stone has offered a sharply contrasting view, criticizing the film during his appearance on the PBD Podcast.
Stone, known for cinematic masterpieces like “JFK” and “Platoon,” did not hold back when describing his disappointment with Scott's latest epic.
“It's certainly watchable. It's good, well-made, but I didn't care about the people. I wasn't invested,” Stone remarked. “The first one was a classic. The second one is empty calories, like a commercial.”
Stone's critique of “Gladiator II” comes as a surprise given the film's widespread acclaim and financial success. Starring Paul Mescal, Denzel Washington, and Barry Keoghan, the sequel had massive expectations to live up to, given the iconic status of the original 2000 film. While some audiences laud its production quality and riveting performances, Stone's comments underscore a broader conversation about the challenges of crafting a worthy sequel to a cultural phenomenon.
While Stone was underwhelmed by “Gladiator II,” his praise for Francis Ford Coppola's “Megalopolis” was effusive. He recently described it as “one stunning scene after another,” underscoring his preference for bold, groundbreaking storytelling.
Stone also touched upon his recent struggles in Hollywood. Having attempted to secure backing for a new film, he revealed that his political views—particularly his neutral stance on Russian President Vladimir Putin—may have led to his being “blacklisted” in the industry. This revelation adds another layer to Stone's remarks, positioning him as an outspoken, if controversial, voice in contemporary filmmaking.
The mixed reception to “Gladiator II” raises questions about the risks and rewards of revisiting beloved stories decades later. For every critical success, there are those who feel such efforts fail to recapture the magic of their predecessors. Whether audiences align with Stone's critique or Nolan's praise, one thing is certain: “Gladiator II” remains a focal point of cinematic discussion in 2024.
My Impressions: Stone's critique of “Gladiator II” resonates with a broader sentiment about sequels attempting to capitalize on nostalgia. While the original film set a benchmark for historical epics, the sequel seems to polarize viewers by emphasizing spectacle over substance. That said, the performances of Paul Mescal and Denzel Washington have drawn widespread praise, which may soften criticisms of the story's depth.
The juxtaposition of Stone's admiration for Coppola's “Megalopolis” highlights his appreciation for bold, innovative filmmaking. It's a reminder of the importance of storytelling that prioritizes emotional engagement over commercial appeal. Whether “Gladiator II” stands the test of time remains to be seen, but Stone's candid remarks spark meaningful debate about the state of modern cinema.
What are your thoughts on Oliver Stone's critique of “Gladiator II”? Do you think the sequel lives up to the legacy of the original, or does it fall short? Share your opinions below!
