Gladiator II: Bigger Is Not Always Better

Son to a murdered father

Gladiator II sounds like an idea pitched by Buck Henry to Tim Robbins’ character in Robert Altman’s The Player. The title itself sounds like an idea that shouldn’t exist, it’s not like the first film ended on a cliffhanger or anything. Even The Onion wouldn’t have joked about something like this ten years ago, but here we are. Thankfully, the original director Ridley Scott is the one who pushed the idea with other cast members like Connie Nielsen returning. So, at least it’s not completely corporate slop, right? This time around the film centers on Lucius Aurelius, the son of Maximus Meridius and grandson of emperor Marcus Aurelius. Following a similar template to the original film, Lucius starts from the bottom up fighting his way through gladiatorial combat to right a wrong in Ancient Rome. The film stars Paul Mescal as Lucius, along with newcomers Pedro Pascal, Joseph Quinn, and Denzel Washington. With a script penned by Napoleon screenwriter David Scarpa replacing John Logan from the original, Gladiator II sets out to be bigger and better than the original despite its predecessor winning Best Picture nearly 25 years ago. Scott sure thinks so claiming it as one of the best films he’s ever made. But, is it? Does Gladiator II eclipse the staggering legacy of the original? Or is it another in a line of unnecessary, legacy sequels that tarnishes any goodwill the original carried? 

The film begins 16 years after Gladiator ended when Maximus Meridius (Russell Crowe) dies in the Colosseum forcing Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) to hide her and Maximus’s son, heir to the throne., sending him away for fear of assassins hunting him down. Lucius lives out the rest of his life without his mother assuming she abandoned him in favor of luxury. He becomes a soldier by the name of “Hanno” on the North African coast with his wife Arishat until General Acacius (Pedro Pascal), now-husband of Lucilla, commands the Roman army to invade their city. He conquers the city and in doing so orders Airshat to be killed. Defeated and taken as a slave, Lucius vows revenge against Acacius. Similar to the first film, he fights in Gladiator tournaments to prove his worth as a potential gladiator wherein Lucius easily dispatches a feral baboon impressing stablemaster Macrinus (Denzel Washington). Meanwhile, Acacius grows weary of combat and wants to spend time with Lucilla but is forced back into war by the two young, temperamental emperors of Rome (Fred Hechinger and Joseph Quinn). Macrinus takes Lucius under his wing promising him bigger Gladiator fights that will ensure he gets revenge against Acacius. After intense battles in the Colosseum, Lucilla and more in the Roman Republic recognize Lucius as the son of Maximus. In an attempt to reconcile with her son, Lucilla is rebuffed as her son is clouded by vengeance. At the same time, Acacius and Lucilla plot to overthrow the empire and restore the order that Marcus Aurelius once promised. But, Macrinus catches wind of it, scheming to use the opportunity to usurp power for himself. Lucius finds himself caught in the middle as the rest of the film follows him as he charts for revenge while the fate of the Roman Republic hangs in the balance. 

Ridley Scott’s latest is pure exhibition of the highest order and one of the finest examples of an outright Hollywood picture in recent times. The film stays true to its campy, melodramatic identity without ever winking at the camera or wasting time on world-building. In terms of extravagance, Gladiator II has more in common with the Sword and Sandal pictures of the 1950s than it does with its predecessor. During the advent of wide-screen cinema, films like The Robe and Land of the Pharaohs were designed to showcase the grandeur of the new format, using the wider frame to pack in sprawling crowds and lavish sets in a way television simply couldn’t match. Similarly, Gladiator II embraces this spectacle-driven approach, delivering a scale that is nothing short of magnificent. The production details are astonishing, with every penny of the budget vividly on display. From the towering Roman ships and the thousands of battlefield extras to the colossal Colosseum set pieces, Scott weaves it all together with grandiose flair. Yet, even the hand-to-hand combat and smaller moments of visceral violence pack a punch with every actor demonstrating immense physicality and commitment. All these brilliant action sequences are elevated by a stellar sound design that immerses the audience, capturing every landed punch and whizzing arrow with pinpoint precision. As typical with any Ridley Scott film, Gladiator II is visually stunning. Shot by John Mathieson, stepping in for Scott’s frequent collaborator Darius Wolski, the film beautifully captures the grandeur of Ancient Rome and the intricately crafted sets. The visual composition and lighting masterfully capture the vast scale of the battles while bathing the more intimate moments in warm, sunlit tones. Visually, the only outlier is the CGI. For the most part, the visual effects are fine except for the water effects during the boat scenes along with the feral baboons who look straight out of the 2000s even worse than the visual effects of the predecessor some twenty years ago. Thankfully, the film avoids over-relying on computer effects, though Scott’s fast-paced working style likely left the team pressed for time. 

While, it’s always impressive to watch a Ridley Scott film and see how he orchestrates massive battle sequences and grand sets as has been the case with many of his films like Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood, The Last Duel, and recently Napoleon. There’s still always been something missing or unsatisfying in his work. As opposed to other filmmakers he’s often compared to or ones he compares himself to, Ridley Scott just doesn’t have a voice or directorial style that’s compelling or personal. He’s the brand ambassador for style over substance. Occasionally, Scott takes on exceptional scripts or concepts, like Alien or Blade Runner, and elevates them to greatness. But, for the most part, despite being able to select his own scripts, his style often mirrors that of a “hired hand”. You never get the sense a scene is truly directed by Ridley Scott; it feels more like he sets up the cameras, lets his cinematographer go to work, and then leaves his poor editor a million miles of footage to sort out, with little vision or effort to guide the audience's attention. Managing massive productions and shooting requisite footage is a challenge for any filmmaker and it’s a testament to Ridley Scott’s reputation that he’s granted the “big bucks” to make whatever he pleases. Known for working at a relentless pace, he pushes through productions without time for reflection on what has been shot. If Ridley Scott devoted more time mastering basic conversation scenes rather than relying on basic coverage techniques taught at any film school, his films—including this one—could achieve a deeper and more compelling balance between spectacle and storytelling. And, while he's at it, perhaps he could allow the scripts more time to evolve into something truly engaging. Unfortunately, as with last year’s Napoleon, the same issue persists: the script.

Napoleon suffered from an interesting figure with an uninteresting script. Choosing to focus on all the boring parts of a fascinating man. While Gladiator II is far more entertaining, the political moments and exposition are both confusing and disengaging. Credit to writer David Scarpa and Scott for capturing the melodrama typical of Ancient Rome, with betrayals and twists at every turn. However, these scenes often felt like filler, serving as transitions before and after the action sequences. And, as already mentioned, Ridley Scott’s mundane directing efforts for these pivotal scenes do no favors. But, the main reason Gladiator II cannot live up to its predecessor is that it lacks the emotional punch. It pulls a bait and switch midway through the film wherein Lucius’s revenge track is essentially put to the side in favor of a third act that focuses on the fight for Rome’s future. While it’s an interesting direction to take, the film fails to provide the necessary depth and reflection for such broad, complex themes. It’s merely forced upon us. 

The first film appealed to us on an emotional and human level where Maximus is merely a father who has lost everything and will fight like hell to win it back. That’s it. A simple story of revenge. Sure, politics swarmed the original film as well but mostly took a backseat to the human element. Now, that’s not a slight against Paul Mescal who admirably fills the lofty shoes of Russell Crowe. It’s hard to match what he did, but Mescal tries even if he falls short. Going in, I was afraid Mescal wouldn’t capture the masculinity required of the role given his previous vulnerable roles in Aftersun and All of Us Strangers. There was something about his soft blue eyes that personally turned me off on this casting choice, but he proved me wrong. He’s fully up to the physical demands, finding his place in the Gladiator world. Denzel Washington is also wonderful, eating up the scenery. To be fair, it’s really just Denzel in Rome. There’s nothing he does to fit into Ancient Rome, he just is but it’s pretty awesome. His undeniable charm dominates scenes and his backstabbing is made all the more sweet. However, Denzel lacks the irritating quality that made Joaquin Phoenix’s turn as Commodus in the original get under your skin. Through no fault of his own, Mescal is rendered far less likable than Denzel giving us a villain we mostly root for at the end. Again, the trouble lies in a script that doesn’t develop a gripping enough story to hold our attention between fights and tries to be more significant than what it really is: a fun action film. 

Some may complain about the film’s historical accuracy and the fact that most people looked like they were picked up from Gold’s Gym and told to put on togas. But asking Ridley Scott to be historically accurate is like asking a politician to tell the truth: it won’t happen. What I’ll admire is that these Gladiator films don’t attempt to craft an authentic Ancient Rome but rather an interpretation of it which is a better approach than the ones typically taken in Scott films. While there’s much to bemoan, there’s no questioning that Gladiator II mounts an impressive production with stellar action sequences —proof that despite Ridley Scott’s best efforts, the film still manages to be entertaining. Hollywood in every way. Still, Ridley Scott’s refusal to improve his workflow and directing style render the non-action scenes dull with a script that lacks the emotional gravitas of the original. But the question remains, does the film justify its existence? Absolutely not. It’s another risk-averse production that’s as modern Hollywood as you can get. The original was a great film: one of the few Ridley Scott tier-1 films. In contrast, Gladiator II is simply a good one, relying on its action sequences to help you overlook its many flaws. [3/4]