By Marcus Blake
It’s hard to live up to the legacy of a great film when you make a sequel to that film. Not every film can be The Empire Strikes Back or The Godfather Part 2 which are generally considered the two greatest sequels. So, for me, when I heard that they were going to make a sequel to Gladiator, an already great film that can stand on its own, admittedly my first question was, why? Did Gladiator really need a sequel? Probably not, but here we are, and now I also have to admit that while not as good as the original, the sequel does a good enough job to live up to its legacy. Gladiator 2 is better than I thought it would be, not perfect, but still, a good film! And let’s face it, Ridley Scott has not always been the best at making sequels to his already great films. Aliens doesn’t count because that was a James Cameron movie!!!
Three things stand out in Gladiator 2 which makes it a film worth seeing and more importantly, a worthy sequel to a near-perfect film! The action in this film is just as In the first film Even when it tries to capture the same formula from the first. But there’s no denying that you get a lot of great action that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The second thing, The performances were really good and I have to compliment Paul Mescal for doing his best at capturing an Oscar-worthy performance the same as Russell Crowe in the first film. Russell Crowe may have been better, but Paul Mescal stands on his own and delivers one hell of a performance even if the dialogue at times is not as good. But the performance that truly stands out is Denzel Washington as the scheming and mostly Machiavellian Roman who seizes control of the Roman Senate and uses success in the gladiatorial arena to improve his station within Rome. It’s a very Richard III type of performance and while there was no doubt that Denzel Washington would not get out of the park because he is a great actor, the real question I had, would his performance even if over-the-top at times make sense in the story… It did! Yes, Denzel Washington can always play a great hero, but he’s always been better as a bad guy. I certainly enjoyed his performance as Macbeth and while he may never play Richard III, this is the closest he will come to that kind of performance… there’s no arguing that his performance is great and stands out in this film. I have to admit, that he is better than Joaquin Phoenix as the antagonist. But like most great films, it is the performances that make the movie. Connie Nielsen was just as good as she was in the first one and Pedro Pascal does a fine job as well, even though he is overshadowed by better performances.
However, Gladiator 2 is not perfect. It certainly isn’t as good as the first film and I don’t know if they could have made a better movie than the first. But despite its problems which we will discuss, the story is quite interesting. This is not a spoiler since it’s already been announced that the main character is Lucius from the first film and the way they tell his story and how he ends up back in Rome as a gladiator is interesting. It’s a great truck’s position to the character of Maximus. But like most Ridley Scott films, it’s hard for him to make a great film or a perfect film in 2 hours. That is this movie’s biggest flaw. It’s a fine movie and tells a great story, but there’s so much more to the story of what happens with these characters in the 16 years since the story of the first film and we do not spend enough time getting caught up with the backstory of these characters and what has happened to them. We get glimpses. I don’t doubt that there is a director’s cut that will be close to 3 hours and that will be the better film. Gladiator too very much reminds me of his film Kingdom of Heaven where the theatrical release was entertaining and an okay film, but it doesn’t match the greatness of the 3-hour director’s cut Ridley Scott makes amazing historical epics. Even if Napoleon wasn’t his best film, his director’s cut is certainly better. There are always added scenes that fill in the space and help the main scenes connect more efficiently. There’s a lot of story to tell with Gladiator 2. The audience needs to know more about Lucius’ life when he was in hiding. We get a few flashbacks that bring the audience up to date with The current status of the character, but there’s so much more to his story than just ending up as a gladiator and becoming the Prince of Rome. There’s more to his mother’s story and what happened to her losing her son and then remarrying. But more importantly, we don’t know anything about Denzel Washington’s character, a few conversations give us some hint of his past, but we should know more. The pacing is fine for a theatric release when it comes to Gladiator 2. The action is good, but there’s much more to the story that the audience deserves to know. So as a critic, I watch this film the same way I watch the theatrical release of Kingdom of Heaven which I do love as a film, but I left the theater wanting to know more and wanting to see the director’s cut. And if you think it’s not necessary to tell this story, well I would argue that Ridley Scott’s director’s cut of Blade Runner is the superior film. After all, it is the version that ends up on streaming services.
I like Gladiator 2. It’s a good film. It’s a great experience in the theater just like the first one, but it does suffer from editing and making the story too short which no amount of action or great performances can fix. I enjoyed the sequel which completely surprised me how they could make a great movie and tell an epic story after the first film. But perhaps the greatest lesson here is never to lose faith in Ridley Scott to be able to tell a great story or at least an average one that’s still entertaining as we saw with Napoleon. Gladiator 2 for me is a good solid 8. It’s a good movie that should be experienced in the theater and has a great story that truly connects to the first film. Yes, it lives up to the legacy of the first film, but sadly, now I just want to see the director’s cut, which I know will be better. But it doesn’t take my enjoyment from watching a sequel that could have certainly been worse. Gladiator 2 is good and if you love the first movie then you should certainly see the sequel!
“Gladiator II” offers familiar characters and great entertainment!”
By Jimmy Alford
I know I come off as a fanboy at times when it comes to my favorite films and directors from my youth. I’m a sucker for the Alien, Terminator and Predator franchises and I’m completely unapologetic for that. With that I’m also a sucker for good action movies. The 80s and 90s were an embarrassment of riches even without strings of superhero epics. It’s no wonder I was looking forward to “Gladiator II.”
It’s been more than two decades since Russell Crowe delighted us with an Oscar-winning performance as Maximus in “Gladiator” and director Ridley Scott has brought us a serviceable companion in “Gladiator II.” It’s not going to blow your socks off. I’m not really sure why we needed this particular sequel, because it is far from the best of the many sequels released this year, let alone one of the best films. However, if you’re only going to the movies to see Oscar contenders, I think you’re missing the point and all the fun. This film is worth the ticket price, because it’s entertaining and it’s been long enough since the original’s release, we can all look past the fact “Gladiator II” is nearly the same movie we saw 24 years ago.
“Gladiator” tells the story of Maximus Decimus Meridius, a loyal Roman general betrayed by Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix, the son of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, played by Richard Harris. After Marcus names Maximus as his successor to restore “The Dream of Rome.” This dream is to take Rome back to its republican roots, Commodus kills his father, seizes the throne, and orders Maximus and his family’s execution. Maximus escapes but is captured and sold into slavery, forced to become a gladiator.
Maximus trains and rises up to gain fame and support, ultimately setting up an epic showdown with Commodus. In this last fight, Maximus and Commodus end up killing one another, with Maximus getting the best of the fight. Hope I didn’t just spoil a movie old enough to rent a car. Supposedly, his final act entrusts Rome’s future to the Senate.
“Gladiator II” picks up years later and follows Lucius, played by Paul Mescal, the exiled son of Lucilla, played again by Connie Nielson, who was influenced and inspired by Maximus’ actions and ideals. Lucius is living in a foreign land, married to Arishat, played by Yuval Gonen, but has to face down an invading Roman army. The army is led by Marcus Acacius, played by Pedro Pascal. Rome is a war hungry juggernaut swallowing up everything in its path. War takes a toll on everyone though, as everyone longs for a time of peace except for the bloodthirsty and corrupt twin emperors, Geta, played by Joseph Quinn, and Caracalla, Fred Hechinger.
Following what is honestly an impressive action packed battle, Lucius finds himself as a slave fighting for his life in the arena where he meets Macrinus, played by Denzel Washington. Macrinus sees Lucius as an opportunity and buys him to fight as a Gladiator.
If you were to watch the two movies back-to-back, you’d see a lot of the same characters with different names. Macrinus = Proximo: both slave traders and gladiator patrons who pave the way for the main character in the coliseum. Caracella and aGeta = Commodus: power hungry, blood thirsty and deeply disturbed rulers who have lost touch with the people and reality. Lucius = Maximus: Defeated soldiers reeling from the deaths of family and fighting their way up the gladiator ladder. Maximus’ wife = Arishat: we meet them early in the movie just to see them killed by Roman soldiers soon after. Marcus Acasius = Marcus Aurelius: our war-weary generals looking to change Rome and give power back to the senate, but are killed before they can achieve their goals. If the movie wasn’t good, I would be lambasting Scott for some lazy storytelling. I mean it still seems lazy, but now it falls into the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” category.
I also give Scott props for choosing Washington for Macrinus. Washington’s magnetic presence ensures powerful and memorable scenes. I have been a little disappointed in his recent Equalizer sequels and thought he was transitioning into a shadow of his former larger-than-life self. But thankfully I was wrong.
I got to see the Washington I delighted in for so many years with my favorites: “Training Day” and “Inside Man.” His emotional complexity and star power just commands attention. Although his gravitas and delivery felt a little out of place in this kind of period piece. It’s a bit like super rich butter cream icing to an already sweet dessert. I don’t care, I’m down for Dezel-induced diabetes.
For all the love I have for Washington, I have middling feelings for the film’s main actor. Mescal wasn’t bad per se, but came off as out of place. His delivery did not match the tone of the rest of the film, and definitely paled in comparison to Washington’s. Every time he spoke I felt taken out of the movie and he sounded more like a Shakespearean stage actor. This makes a lot of sense, because so much of his acting since 2017 has been on stage and not for film. I’m not saying that delivery is bad, but It doesn’t fit this film.
Despite this, Mescal is still serviceable and is good in his physical acting. The fights, and battles were amazing, especially when you do a little nerdy historic digging. As crazy as some of the coliseum’s scenes appeared, they line up with many historic accounts. Alas, after it was all said and done the ending was mediocre. Instead of an exciting epic last clash or a dramatic and heartfelt exit, we got labored metaphors and shallow references to the first film and a predictable appeal for peace.
Is “Gladiator II” a decent sequel? Yes, no doubt. Is the story a bit of a rehash? Yes. But should people spend their hard-earned cash and take the ride? Without a doubt, yes. Gladiator II is worth it and is truly entertaining. It’s a 7 all day long.
