Gladiator II (2024)

​"Gladiator II" stars Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger, Lior Raz, Derek Jacobi, Connie Nielsen, and Denzel Washington.  Released on November 22, 2024, the film has a former heir fighting as a gladiator to protect Rome and seek revenge.

The film is directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed films such as "Alien", "Thelma & Louise", "American Gangster", "The Martian", and "Napoleon".  It is a sequel to Scott's 2000 historical action epic "Gladiator".  History has its share of legacies that last for generations.  Some involve sparking life-changing legends through revenge, especially those in 2nd-century Rome.  One legacy was depicted in Ridley Scott's historical epic classic, "Gladiator", a traditional revenge tale involving a Roman general becoming a gladiator to avenge his father's death.  The film, which benefited from Russell Crowe's award-winning performance and Scott's approach to technical achievements, became a pinnacle of the filmmaker's role in the film industry.  It was seen as a one-and-done film that completes Maximus's journey of revenge until Ridley Scott decided to continue that legacy 24 years later but through the eyes of Lucilla's son, Lucius.  He expanded his "Alien" franchise a decade ago, so surely he'll be able to do the same with "Gladiator", right?  Let's travel back to Roman times and find out.

The story occurs after the events of "Gladiator".  It centers on Lucius Verus (Mescal), a Roman refugee.  Following the death of Maximus, Lucius now resides in Numidia under the alias "Hanno", where he spends his peaceful days with his wife, Arishat (Yuval Gonen).  Unfortunately, his tranquil life was immediately interrupted by the invasion from the Roman army, led by General Marcus Acacius (Pascal), who slaughtered his wife and forced Lucius into slavery.  After learning about his family history, including Maximus's tale and his mother Lucilla (Nielsen), Lucius seeks to become a gladiator and exact revenge against Acacius.  He is trained under Macrinus (Washington), a former slave with an agenda to overthrow the Roman twin emperors Geta (Quinn) and Caracalla (Hechinger).  As Lucius fights through multiple rounds in the arena, he finds himself on a path that could lead him to continue Maximus's legacy.

On multiple occasions, a sequel to a cinematic classic I haven't seen before persuaded me to do so in preparation for its release.  "Gladiator II" is one of those occasions, as I hadn't watched the first "Gladiator" movie all the way through.  That is until "Gladiator II" convinced me otherwise.  I was able to find the right time to watch "Gladiator" on Paramount+ before seeing the sequel, and I was very impressed at how well it holds up presentation-wise.  While I didn't see it as a perfect masterpiece in terms of its formulaic and bloated story, Ridley Scott's direction and style were enough to entertain me and its audience, even after 24 years of release.  However, it also left me concerned about how "Gladiator II" would stack up with the original in terms of quality and necessity, similar to my many experiences with the previous legacy sequels.

As mentioned earlier, "Gladiator" was seen as a one-and-done cinematic epic that didn't even need a franchise to begin with.  It told a revenge tale of Maximus avenging his family through gladiator battles, sparking inspiration to his audience, and that's it.  But, it seemed that Scott had an intriguing idea of expanding this Roman world.  But, instead of reviving Maximus from the dead to do so, he went with the perspective of a much older Lucius, portrayed by Spencer Treat Clark in the first film.  Considering his small screen time in the predecessor, this seemed like an excellent opportunity to expand Lucius's role as the next hero who stands up against the forces of tyranny and injustice instead of being a side character.  But does its story and entertainment help in realizing this opportunity?  Well, not really.

I'm pretty sure I will get executed for saying this, but "Gladiator II" was not something to be entertained about.  I know.  I was pretty shocked by my own reaction as well since I heard nothing but good responses about this sequel.  But after watching the movie myself, I just couldn't see it.  The first "Gladiator" movie was a glum yet invigorating revenge tale about a general avenging his family and standing up to a false god.  Sure, it wasn't groundbreaking regarding the story, but it was held together by the technical aspects and convincing emotion.  So, what did Ridley Scott do with "Gladiator II"?  Have Lucius go through the same process, of course.  "Gladiator II" closely resembled its predecessor, mirroring the same themes that characterized Maximus's journey.  You have Lucius battling through the ranks as a gladiator to avenge his wife while being tutored by the former slave who bought him, Macrinus.  But, of course, it's not a legacy sequel without him continuing the path that Maximus started before his death, along with some flashbacks that would probably make specific people wish they'd watch the first movie instead.  While it's not without its moments of style and action, it didn't have the necessary momentum to make its unoriginality tolerable.  The emotional core that defined the first film's legend was overshadowed by the sequel's blockbuster spectacle and the unexpected inconsistency of its direction.

Ridley Scott has been known for delivering grim and intriguing storylines that balance with the cinematic scales of the production designs and raw violence, especially "Gladiator" and even "The Last Duel".  However, when it comes to specific movies that attempt to balance the darkness with campiness, Scott didn't quite have enough skills to survive this type of fight.  Movies like "House of Gucci" and "Napoleon" showcase impressive authenticity in their violence and production designs.  But, whenever they attempt to inject humor through campy performances or tones, they wound up being too absurd for their own good, overshadowing the grimness they're going for.  "Gladiator II" belongs in this category, as it went from a bleak historical action epic of its predecessor to a brighter yet violent action blockbuster whose laughable melodrama lacks the morality of its storytelling and themes involving revenge, honor, and freedom.  I'm pretty sure those who weren't fans of the first film's dark tone may be satisfied with the sequel's lighter approach, but those who do may not want to step into the arena again for a while.  The movie is also a few minutes shorter than its predecessor, but that didn't excuse the pacing for being a tad rushed during certain moments.

While Scott's direction failed to provide a more potent substance for "Gladiator II", he was able to compensate with the one element he improved upon: the action scenes.  "Gladiator" has plenty of violence that captures the rawness and realism of its brutalities, with the opening sequence being its highlight.  But sometimes, the shaky cam during those sequences can be a tad annoying to witness.  Ridley Scott corrected that mistake for "Gladiator II" by providing still shots for audiences to see the violence up and front.  While not as memorable as the violence in its predecessor, the bloodshed action in "Gladiator II" still provided the entertaining spectacle audiences can expect from a history-based movie.  The production designs were also well-crafted for the film's historical authenticity and set pieces, accompanied suitably by its visual effects.

As for the cast, they were enjoyable for the task they were given, but I'm not convinced they were considered awards-worthy.  After starring in the brilliant "Aftersun" two years ago, Paul Mescal takes center stage in a big-budget blockbuster as the adult Lucius, a character Spencer Treat Clark played in the first film.  Mescal made the most of his acting abilities to portray Lucius' revenge-filled persona, even if it didn't have the same emotional grasp as Russell Crowe's Maximus.  Pedro Pascal and Connie Nielsen did pretty well as Acacius and Lucilla, respectively, with the latter being one of the two who reprised their roles from the original film.  The other is Sir Derek Jacobi, who returned to play Senator Gracchus.  Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger are the only two actors who left me feeling divisive, especially regarding the film's conflicting tone.  Their characters, Geta and Caracalla, were described as unhinged and power-hungry emperors bringing Rome further into anarchy, but in terms of their over-the-top performances, they sound like they belong in a Looney Tunes cartoon.  There was some humor to be had in their far-fetched acting, but I didn't chuckle at it because it was funny.  I chuckled because of how idiotic and even forgettable it resembled.  At the very least, Denzel Washington, the guy who always makes every film he's in watchable, committed to the film's unwanted campiness better than the antagonists regarding his performance as Macrinus.

Overall, "Gladiator II" is an unnecessary, shameless, and inconsistent expansion of the "Gladiator" universe, lacking the honor and emotion that drove its predecessor to victory.  It still carries the blood-spewing spectacle the first movie is known for, especially regarding the well-framed action sequences.  Unfortunately, the grandness of its storytelling scale was buried underneath the sands of tedious campiness and uninspired approach to its thematic material.  The cast, especially Denzel Washington, was admittedly enjoyable, and the set pieces were genuinely immersive for the action sequences.  But the uneven direction of its tone, emotional depth, and familiar narrative beats make this continuation of Maximus's legacy unworthy of my mercy.  If campy historical action is your thing, you might have a better time with "Gladiator II" than I did.  However, if you're hoping for a tone and storytelling similar to its predecessor, you're better off watching Maximus fight in the Coliseum again.     

C-