Gladiator II Review

Am I not merciful?

In many sequels, a shadow can hang over the film from the original. For example, Vito Coreleone hangs over Michael Corleone for the entirety of The Godfather Part 2, guiding and pushing his actions. The same could be said for Leto Atreides, who hangs over Paul during Dune Part 2. In both these cases, the shadow enhances the story, and we can feel its weight over our protagonists. In a way, it enriches both these performances with these ghosts lingering over them and gives these characters way more depth. The shadow of the original Gladiator weighs heavy over its sequel, and instead of pushing it to new or grander heights, this shadow reminds us of how good we once had it. Ridley Scott's Gladiator II has some badass spectacle, and the sheer scale of some of these action-set pieces is commendable, but why don't I feel anything? It could be that the film lacks juice from its main cast outside of Denzel Washington, who's hamming it up to new levels we didn't know possible on screen. With a sloppy script paired with flat characters who are just archetypes from the original film, it can feel like a weird cover band of Gladiator's greatest hits.

Gladiator II takes place 16 years after the original film's events. The son of Maximus and Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), Lucius (Paul Mescal), is enslaved and becomes a gladiator after Rome invades his homeland. Lucius seeks revenge on General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) for leading the invasion and ordering the death of his wife. Lucius hopes to reach this goal by fighting as a gladiator for Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who plans to overthrow Rome from its two deprived emperors.

My first and main takeaway from Gladiator II is that Denzel is the only one in this film with any juice. He was a great reminder of what a movie star can be. He chews up every scene in either conniving or flamboyant fashion but keeps my attention locked on him and his devious plans. So it's time to have the Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal conversation, whose names are too similar for my liking. When I talk about a shadow looming over this film, it's the lightning-in-a-bottle charisma of Russel Crowe. Crowe commanded scenes in the original and not just in the arena! Mescal has a lot going against him because there will be comparisons between his and Crowe's iconic performances. I think Paul is good in the film and doing his own thing, but the poor script entirely hamstrings him. I bought into him being a physical instrument of death in the arena, but I don't think the film's story allowed me to believe he could be the true savior of Rome. I think Paul is doing his best with the material presented to him, and at times, I was charmed and impressed. I can see him leading a better blockbuster in the future. Pedro Pascal is rather lifeless and dull. Connie Neilsen, has she acted since the original film? I'm genuinely curious because her scenes were awful to bear at times. The two sicko emperors didn't do anything for me either, but again, I feel like for most of the cast, none were given much nuance at all outside of Denzel trying to dig something up out of nothing.

What about the action set pieces? They do indeed rip! Sharks in a coliseum are as cool as it sounds! There is a lack of direction in some of these scenes, which simultaneously hurts Paul's performance. In the original, we see Crowe leading his fellow gladiators like an experienced quarterback and the direction there feels like you are seeing the Xs and O's drawn up in the arena for his men in real time. Here, it felt as though Paul was forced to yell and command without giving him time to show himself as the tactical leader he was in action. The sword fights and use of animal CGI are sick, don't get me wrong, and this film is way gorier and bloodier than the original, but they didn't have the stakes. I never felt as though all of Rome was rooting for Paul's character or that we felt a shift in rule in Rome at any time based on the fights in the arena. It feels like a lot was cut, which sounds about right for a Ridley Scott film, and maybe the director’s cut will give the movie more bite and gravitas.

It's a runtime that can feel gluttonous when we are just running the nostalgia highlights of the original with a script that's borderline mediocre to bad. I had a few eye rolls at callbacks to the original that didn’t feel earned but were sometimes lifted by Paul’s hype-up speeches to his men that included such callbacks—a real mix bag. We sometimes run on fumes with Sir Ridley Scott's return to Rome. A film that looks this good with such an all-star cast should not be this bland. I was mildly entertained by Gladiator II but wanted more at the end of the day. I would have loved more emotional depth over giant rhinos, but that giant rhino was pretty sick.

Final Score: 6/10

(Also, I could give a shit about historical accuracies. Let Scott do whatever he wants. Watch a documentary or read a book. THIS IS THE MOVIES BABY!!!)

Written by Kevin J. Pettit