After a long 24-year hiatus since the Oscar-winning masterpiece ‘Gladiator’, acclaimed director Ridley Scott makes a comeback to the iconic colosseum era with his eagerly anticipated sequel, which proves to be both a challenge to defend and difficult to overlook.
There were certainly valid reasons to harbor apprehension about Gladiator II.
More accurately, as introduced in the opening credits, the sequel is titled Glad-II-ator.
It is, therefore, essential to pronounce this legacy sequel correctly: “Gladiiiiiiiiator.”
If the ill-fated Fant4stic can’t escape being referred to as “Fant-four-stick,” then there is no justification for giving any leniency to this follow-up to the award-winning 2000 classic simply because it bears the name of esteemed filmmaker Ridley Scott.
GladIIator has enormous shoes to fill, as echoes of Gladiator’s stirring speeches, breathtaking battles, and the ethereal musical score composed by Hans Zimmer continue to resonate with audiences even after nearly a quarter of a century. Furthermore, Scott’s directorial ventures have often seen a fluctuating trajectory; alongside triumphs like Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and The Martian, he has also experienced significant flops such as Kingdom of Heaven, A Good Year, the perplexing The Counselor, and more recently, Napoleon.
Nonetheless, we must refrain from criticizing House of Gucci – it stands as a camp masterpiece, and that’s the final word on it.
Despite Scott’s return stirring much anticipation, the end product is undoubtedly complex, difficult to label as a failure, but equally challenging to champion wholeheartedly.
Unlike the eccentric sequel concept once proposed by the talented Nick Cave, which suggested that we follow Maximus (Russell Crowe) as he navigates through the afterlife, GladIIator takes a different approach by resuming the narrative 16 years after the passing of our beloved General of the Armies of the North and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius.
The once-glorious dream of Rome has crumbled into obscurity. The empire finds itself on the brink of disintegration, ruled by not one but two feeble and inept emperors – Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger).
Picture the legendary figures Romulus and Remus, but reimagined as self-centered and rebellious characters reminiscent of John Lydon.
Their despotic regime is characterized by an insatiable thirst for blood, driven by relentless ambitions of conquest.
Amidst this chaos emerges a tanned and muscular Lucius Verus (Paul Mescal), the son of Maximus, who has grown up under the moniker Hanno. He pledges to take vengeance on General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal), who orchestrates a naval assault on the North African region of Numidia, ultimately leading to the tragic death of Lucius’ wife, Arishat (Yuval Gonen), and to his own subsequent capture.
Predictably, GladIIator unfolds as a rehash of the original Gladiator storyline. Lucius finds himself thrust into the brutal world of gladiators, having caught the attention of Macrinus (Denzel Washington) – a cunning slave owner with his own political ambitions regarding Rome’s future. Unbeknownst to Lucius, Acacius is weary of the endless territorial expansion and has secretly plotted a coup against the ineffectual Geta and Caracalla. Further complicating matters, Acacius is married to Lucius’ estranged mother, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen reprising her role from the original film), who had exiled him from Rome post the events of the first film in an attempt to shield him from the perilous intrigues surrounding the throne. This familial connection makes Lucius the grandson of Marcus Aurelius, positioning him as the legitimate successor to the Roman empire.
If the trajectory of true love is often fraught with challenges, the road to revenge proves no simpler.
Addressing the elephant in the arena: “Are you not entertained?”
Yes, GladIIator is undoubtedly a well-crafted and captivating experience. Who wouldn’t be intrigued by gladiators battling an army of wild baboons in a frenzy, confronting a lumbering rhinoceros, and surviving a shark-infested colosseum?
The shortcomings of this sequel primarily stem from screenwriter David Scarpa, who previously collaborated with Scott on All the Money in the World and last year’s Napoleon. Scarpa gives this sequel an unnecessary continuation feel. The lack of powerful or memorable dialogues is evident; iconic lines like “Where death is, we are not” fade in comparison to the original’s profound proclamations, such as “Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back,” written by David Franzoni, William Nicholson, and John Logan. Tragically, this continuation relies heavily on nostalgia, opting to invoke callbacks rather than carving out its distinct identity within cinematic history.
(Mild spoiler ahead)
The film can’t even muster an ending that feels original, resorting instead to yet another expositional flashback.
(Mild spoiler over)
The tired narrative rhythms are compounded by a bewildering pacing. Along with dubious CGI, the absence of Hans Zimmer’s iconic score becomes painfully evident. Additionally, glaring historical inaccuracies and the inability of both Quinn and Hechinger to rival the fierce portrayal of Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus leave viewers wanting. The action scenes, while well-constructed, are devoid of momentum and genuine tension. Once the combat scenarios commence, they are resolved too rapidly, failing to create any real investment in the stakes at hand. Emotional weight is superficial, leaving little for the audience to cling to, which forces the muscular Mescal to navigate through a script with scant emotional depth.
While Mescal is undeniably an impressive physical presence, he struggles to convey anything beyond muted emotions, lacking a compelling rallying cry.
Scott seems to have misjudged what resonated with audiences in the original Gladiator – it wasn’t merely the action sequences, but the heart-wrenching journey of Maximus, his betrayal, his grief, and his ardent quest for vengeance. In GladIIator, there is a distinct lack of exploration into these deeper themes, and the rivalries unfold in a confusing manner. Relationships shift rapidly; Lucius forgives Acacus without any substantial character development, and the complicated feelings he harbored towards his mother abruptly dissipate, culminating in an anticlimactic reunion in a prison cell.
Strikingly, the only real standout is Denzel Washington, who brings charisma to each line he delivers, deftly balancing gravitas with camp. Is his performance Oscar-worthy? Perhaps not, but his wide-ranging talent serves as a lifeline for a film that sometimes struggles to stay afloat, even more so than the boats in the arena.
Visually compelling, GladIIator paradoxically bears an emptiness, relying heavily on grand spectacle while neglecting emotional depth, ultimately failing to break free from the towering shadow cast by Gladiator. Did Scott even intend to step beyond the original’s legacy?
It becomes evident that the passage of over two decades has not given the director the requisite insight to elevate this sequel to new heights, suggesting it may have been wiser to let the original stand on its own merits.
In this regard, this sequel finds itself in the same category as George Miller’s Furiosa: entertaining, yet entirely unnecessary.
This outcome often arises when a director and their screenwriter become comfortable amplifying everything to an exaggerated degree, with the exception of emotional depth, dreading to forge a new and truly satisfying narrative arc.
“Strength and honour”? More like a diluted echo of the past.
GladIIator is out in cinemas now.
How might the performance of Paul Mescal as Lucius influence the overall reception of “GladIIator”?
**Interview with Film Critic Jane Smith on “Gladiator II”**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Jane. With Ridley Scott’s long-awaited sequel, titled “GladIIator,” just around the corner, fans have a lot to discuss. What are your initial thoughts on the film’s premise after nearly 24 years since the original “Gladiator”?
**Jane Smith:** Thanks for having me! It’s definitely a fascinating yet challenging premise. The original “Gladiator” was so monumental, and expectations are sky-high for Scott to recapture that magic. The approach taken—set 16 years after Maximus’s demise and focusing on Lucius Verus—could either spark new narratives or fall flat by retreading too much familiar ground.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned the risk of revisiting themes from the first film. Are you concerned that “GladIIator” will rely too heavily on nostalgia?
**Jane Smith:** Absolutely, and that is one of my biggest apprehensions. While nostalgia can be powerful, “GladIIator” seems to lean on it dangerously. The callbacks may provide a sense of comfort for fans, but they run the risk of overshadowing the need for fresh storytelling. If the dialogue and emotional depth don’t hold up to that of the original, it could feel like a hollow nostalgic trip rather than a worthy sequel.
**Interviewer:** In your review, you pointed out that the screenplay might be lacking iconic lines reminiscent of the original. Can you elaborate on that?
**Jane Smith:** Yes, the dialogue in “GladIIator” reportedly lacks the gravitas and memorability that made the original so impactful. Lines like “Death smiles at us all; all a man can do is smile back” resonate deeply, while the new exchanges seem to fall short. This diminishes the overall emotional weight and connection audiences felt with Maximus. If viewers don’t feel that investment, the stakes become superficial, which is troubling, especially for a film rooted in revenge.
**Interviewer:** How do you think Ridley Scott’s directorial choices will affect the audience’s reception of “GladIIator”?
**Jane Smith:** Well, Scott is a legendary filmmaker, but his trajectory has been hit or miss in recent years. The action and spectacle he brings are undeniable, but the execution must be cohesive. If the CGI is shaky and the pacing is uneven—as some early critiques suggest—it could detract significantly from the viewer’s experience. Film lovers will be looking for the emotional journey and character development that marked the first film, not just flashy battles.
**Interviewer:** What’s your take on the new cast, particularly Paul Mescal as Lucius?
**Jane Smith:** Paul Mescal is incredibly talented, and he brings a physicality to the role that’s impressive. However, the script appears to hinder his ability to express profound emotional arcs. The real challenge is whether he can connect with audiences, much like Russell Crowe did with Maximus. If the material isn’t strong, no amount of physicality can replace depth of character.
**Interviewer:** As a final thought, what do you hope audiences take away from “GladIIator”?
**Jane Smith:** I hope viewers can appreciate the craft behind it, but ideally, I want them to feel the same weight of loss, betrayal, and the quest for vengeance that resonated in the original. If “GladIIator” can capture some of that spirit while offering something new, it might transcend those lofty expectations; if not, it risks becoming merely a shadow of its predecessor.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your insights, Jane. We look forward to seeing how ”GladIIator” shapes up upon its release!
**Jane Smith:** Thank you! Here’s hoping for a spectacle that does justice to the legacy of “Gladiator.”
