Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator II” was bound to be compared to his 2000 blockbuster—and it has. But honestly the two have little in common with the other. Yes, this film follows Lucius, who was a young boy in the original, and re-casts Connie Nielsen—his mother—who had an affair with Russell Crowe’s ‘Maximus.’ And it features a return to the Colosseum, gladiatorial fights, and tyrannical defiance. However, the Rome of the original film is not the Rome of Scott’s sequel. And as such—featuring twin, despotic emperors—the film ultimately drops the ball in showing the city’s decadence and what living in such a frivolous and dangerous time is like. The film instead focuses too much time on political debauchery and power struggles, alongside a performance from Paul Mescal as Lucius which is the film’s greatest asset.
When we first met Lucius, he is living in the African kingdom of Numidia under the name Han-no, fighting alongside his wife (Yuval Gonen) to protect his home from an invading Roman fleet. Leading the charge is General Acacius (a good Pedro Pascal), and the film takes on a violent tone. The battle sequence is enthralling—Scott is clearly showing off the film’s $250M budget. But what I found the most interesting is the way Han-no criticizes the Romans as barbarians who only own things they have taken by force. He’s not wrong. It makes it hard to align with Pescal’s Acacius later in the film when it’s shown he’s a decent man trying to undo a tyranny. But these are complicated times, and nothing is simple.
Bigger Cinematography and Scope
Han-no is of course captured, and his wife killed. It sets up a rage and blood-lust to kill Acacius he can barely contain. He’s now a slave, and is purchased by an interested party, Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who recognizes his rage as something he can profit from. A gladiatorial fight or two later, and Han-no is in Macrinus’ good graces. He promises him Acacius’ head; and later, when we see he has the power to deliver, it lands in an odd way. Who is Macrinus and what is his story? “Gladiator II” will later explain, but I found the proceedings a little too convenient and ambitious for the film’s scope.
What works about “Gladiator II” is the cinematography and scope, which goes bigger on some things, but not necessarily better. The opening gladiatorial fight I found ludicrous, pitting the slaves against a horde of CGI baboons, which looked more like mythical monsters in a fantasy epic than flesh-and-blood animals. The same over-the-top treatment is given to a subsequent battle where the Roman Colosseum is filled with water for a ship battle. Sharks infest the waters, and I couldn’t help but become distracted by how fictitious this was. I had to look to be sure, but Romans would not have been able to transport sharks to an arena for a number of reasons. The scenes are obviously meant to top the feats of “Gladiator,” but the very real and dangerous lions and tigers were a better fit.
Overly Ambitious this Time
However, where “Gladiator II” suffers most is its scope—which is simply too grand. Sandwiched in its 2 hour and 28-minute run-time lies a slave’s quest for revenge, the secret of what happened to Lucius Verus from the original film, twin emperors without a care of what happens to the Roman people in lieu of their own greed and avarice, and several political plots and uprisings meant to secure power for different brokers.
I found it all too ambitious, and the run-time (7 minutes shorter than Scott’s first, “Gladiator”) to be too short. In Scott’s first foray there was the quest of a husband to avenge his slain family, with a minor plot to save Rome somewhere in its longings. The run-time was adequate, and the characters aptly built. Here, however, there’s simply too much happening and not enough time to cover it. But worse—to me—was the missed opportunity to show the horror for ordinary men and women to live under tyranny. The film focuses on the decadence of its emperors Geta and Caracalla (Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger) and the mischievousness of Macrinus, with side plots devoted to Acacius and Lucius. As a result there’s too much going on to invest in the characters, a lot of which is distracting and hits less emotionally than I imagine Scott hoped.
Mescal Brings the Power
The acting is good all around, but the show-stealer for me is Mescal, who really makes you believe his anger, drive, and actions. He’s not a hero—though Scott wants him to be—and the film’s closing frames as he asks Maximus to speak to him for his future allude to a man caught up in a bigger picture. The same was true of Maximus of course: he never wanted to be an emperor—though Marcus Aurelius wanted him to be—and there are some like father/like son thematics here. Frame by frame, Mescal steals the show. He makes us care about “Gladiator II” when the ambition and movie-like plots threaten to take over.
Quinn and Hechinger are apt; as callous, bloodthirsty-for-their-amusement emperors, they felt more authentic to me than Joaquin Phoenix’s character from “Gladiator.” In history there were monstrous Roman leaders—Nero and Caligula come to mind—and they embody that horror. They both act well, but unfortunately Scott has other ideas for his narrative than to outline Roman barbarism, to the film’s detriment. Alongside them, Pascal does the best he can with the material, which starts him as a weapon of an empire and has him later fighting for its soul. His scenes with Mescal are filled with tenseness—rightly—but his scenes with his wife, Lucilla (Nielsen) are filled with love and joy. He’s tasked with a lot, and delivers. A scene toward the end with Lucius is believable, even if a similar scene between Nielsen and Mescal later in the film feels forced.
Of Missed Opportunities
Much critical buzz has been aligned with Denzel Washington’s performance here. And while it’s adequate—the actor is pleasing as always—I found Macrinus’ character given too much screen-time and conflict. He plays chess with the Roman Empire; and while it is always fun to see evildoers get their comeuppance, when you realize Macrinus is just as bad—or worse—it loses its effect. It also felt hamstrung and forced. I took pause at some commentary from film critics claiming the film spent too much time on the “slave to hero’s journey”—aimed at Mescal’s character—but failed to see its applicability to Macrinus. The whole thing was a bit much to me, and lost believability. The closing scenes between Mescal and Washington are powerful but constrained. This is not the actors’ fault, I feel, but the script and cram-packed plot elements.
All-in-all “Gladiator II” is a fine film. It’s good entertainment, and a loud, thrilling time at the cinema. It features only one of the original screenwriters—Paul Franzoni—which might be to blame for part of its overstuffed nature. There’s many stories online these days about the input—albeit harsh—Russell Crowe added to the first film’s writing. And despite his scathing comments, maybe his input helped elevate that film. Or perhaps “Gladiator II” was a film Scott felt he had to make rather than one he wanted to. It has the battles, it has the clashes, soundtrack, and majesty. However it lacks the heart. With a more dedicated focus on the tyranny of ancient Rome—and less a redux of the first film—“Gladiator II” could have made a definitive statement.
