Skip to main content

Fast Film Reviews

Gladiator II

Rating 5/10

History repeats itself–and so do sequels.

Years after the fall of Maximus, Lucius Verus (Paul Mescal) finds his life upended when the Roman general Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) leads an assault on his city, leaving his wife, Arishat (Yuval Gonen), dead. Lucius is sold into slavery and is purchased by the arms dealer Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who trains him as a gladiator for Rome’s Colosseum. Macrinus forces Lucius into brutal combat, dangling the promise of vengeance upon Acacius as motivation. Meanwhile, twin emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) neglect Rome’s citizens despite Acacius’s pleas for peace. Acacius and his wife, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), are disillusioned with their behavior. Lucius plans to rebel against the corrupt system and restore peace to Rome.

Once again, Rome is in chaos. Gladiator II retells the original’s narrative arc. The account undermines the legacy of Russell Crowe’s Maximus, as the corruption he fought to expose resurfaces with new faces. Sure, this cyclical storytelling is not uncommon in moviemaking. But I expect more from Ridley Scott doing a sequel to a film that won Best Picture. This is just a stale rehash and a less involving one at that. The relationship between Joaquin Phoenix’s tormented Commodus and Russell Crowe’s steadfast Maximus ignited a mesmerizing conflict, serving as the driving force and fiery heart of Gladiator. That absorbing dynamic is missing in Gladiator II.

Actor Paul Mescal has done notable work before in Aftersun and All of Us Strangers. However, his charisma is sapped here, leaving him a bland—albeit muscular—hero struggling to step into the role of a predecessor who gave an iconic performance. Lucius retraces Maximus’s path rather than carving his own unique journey. Without a compelling star, one must search for other roles to draw us in. Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger give colorful performances as the Emperors. I liked them. Still, Denzel Washington gets the juiciest part with the most opportunity to provide an exaggerated performance that checks all the proverbial boxes: theatrical, flamboyant, expressive, and campy. It’s fine, an admirable achievement, to be sure, but it becomes the singular highlight only by default because there is literally no one else here to engage our emotions.

The visually impressive fights place an emphasis on quantity not quality. Lucius enters gladiatorial combat, facing a rhino, a battle with baboons, and even a naval clash of ships in a water-filled Colosseum teeming with sharks—I kid you not. It is a sight to behold, one wondrous CGI-augmented display after another.  Cinematographer John Mathieson shoots the clashes with a keen eye for grandeur. Yet, the relentless parade of gory displays stretches the picture to a bloated 148 minutes. And that’s without mentioning the human foes Lucius must overcome. The emotional intensity that defined Gladiator is diluted. These indulgent set pieces don’t enrich the story—they replace it. While the movie dazzles with its scale, I couldn’t help but crave the grounded humanity that made the classic so unforgettable.

Gladiator II is undeniably a spectacle. Sadly, it prioritizes excess over depth. Even though I generally resist comparing sequels to the original, screenwriter David Scarpa compels one to do so by echoing memorable dialogue, reimagining its most iconic moments, and even crafting characters that are essentially copies of their forebears. At least Scarpa wisely refrains from invoking the famous line, ‘Are you not entertained?’ Because then we would have to answer, ‘Meh, a little.’

11-18-24

5 Responses

  1. I went in expecting mostly battles and beautiful scenery. That’s what I got. Lots of creative battles too. I didn’t real mind not having my emotions tied to anyone, I just enjoyed the campy, serious and ridiculous performances. I was entertained. 3 1/2 ⭐️

  2. Great review Mark, I agree with just about everything. Although I will say my dislike the film kind of focused more on actor Paul Mescal for both his character and (weirdly) his mouth. Don’t ask (I can’t explain). I loved the visceral fight scenes, the Epic sets and costumes. Unfortunately, I found myself pretty pretty disinterested and what happened to him, the Gladiator. I did love Denzel Washington’s character though, as it kinda reminded me of a Roman version of his character in Training Day. I also enjoyed the two emperors, and liked how realistic the makeup was, making them look quite sickly and pasty-faced. I hope this movie does get some recognition at least for the sets, makeup & even the costumes (they were quite good). It’s just too bad I didn’t like the actual Gladiator this time around. He sort of came off like a spoiled child to me. That might just be me. Maybe Gladiator 3 – The Fall of the Roman Empire – will be better? If they decide to make one in another 20 or 25 years 😉

    1. Paul Mescal’s performance didn’t work for me either, but my issue was with the emotional disconnect rather than anything physical. Yes! The production design and makeup were excellent, and Denzel was a standout—he brought such depth to his role. We are on the same page with him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discover more from Fast Film Reviews

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading