His name was Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the armies of the north. General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. He was the father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, and someone who seeks vengeance in his life or the next. 24 years after audiences first witnessed the fate of Russell Crowe’s Maximus in “Gladiator,” Ridley Scott’s take on the Roman Empire epic returns to theaters with “Gladiator II.” Ever since the first film released in theaters in 2000, it grew massively in popularity both with its Best Picture win at the Oscars and its iconic themes and performances. With that in mind, creating a sequel to a film at that level seems nearly impossible to accomplish. Though 24 years later, Paramount Pictures released “Gladiator II” to continue the Roman story; however, does this film have what it takes to live up to its legendary predecessor?
Immediately, the most striking aspect of the film is the cinematography and camera work. As expected from a film directed by Ridley Scott, every single scene in the movie is shot with wide shots and a plethora of actors and set pieces taking place. The cinematography captures the ancient Roman aesthetic effectively, with elements of the bustling environment filled by extras and its scenery skillfully and vividly crafted by set designers— something that is sure to catch the audience’s attention.
The film also contains some incredible action sequences with a ton of different animals to fill the scenery such as giant baboons, rhinos and even sharks. From boat battles to sword fights, “Gladiator II” provides action entertainment value all throughout its runtime, even if some of it becomes a little bit over the top.
As someone who isn’t a history buff, the historical inaccuracies of the film were something I barely noticed or even cared to make note about. Was it a bit ridiculous to see the colosseum flooded with water filled with giant sharks hungry for Gladiators? Yes, but it serves its purpose as an entertaining action sequence to watch.
With the incredible cast Scott was able to get for the film, each actor does a great job of bringing the audience into the world of ancient Rome. The first one that comes to mind is Paul Mescal, the new lead actor for the franchise. Even though he doesn’t bring the screen presence that Russell Crowe brought in the previous film, he still does a great job of commanding the audience’s attention and making his journey in the film one worth going on.
Every other performance in the film is also top notch, particularly with Fred Hechinger and Joseph Quinn as the new emperors of Rome. Both actors had great chemistry with each other throughout the film, which made most of the scenes they were in a lot more memorable. Pedro Pascal and Connie Nielsen also did a great job of playing off of Mescal’s Lucius, as well as adding depth and complexity to the nature of their characters and ties to the previous film. For example, what comes off as a battle between Mescal and Pascal turns into a serious moment of realization for Mescal’s character, adding some great emotional moments to both characters and the actors playing them. With Nielsen, she does a phenomenal job carrying the heart of the film, as she also consists of personal ties to Mescal’s character that crescendoed into a gut wrenching finale for both of the characters involved.
As for Denzel Washington, who played Macrinus, he seems to be having a lot of fun playing his character and does provide for an entertaining watch; however, his New York accent doesn’t entirely fit with the nature of the Roman Empire and the other characters around him. Any other actor could have played Macrinus just fine and passed, but because the character was played by world-renowned actor Denzel Washington, his performance in “Gladiator II” doesn’t reach the heights of any of his best roles and he could have done better in this movie.
Regarding story, there are plenty of connections to the original “Gladiator” that made sense, but at times, the film takes some blatantly obvious moments and plays them as twist reveal scenes. The reveals themselves were fine, but their execution didn’t bring any sort of shock value that the scene was going for at all.
The biggest thing that holds “Gladiator II” back is how great and culturally celebrated the first film is. The sequel is solid, but it just doesn’t at all reach the heights of the film that came before it. That doesn’t make the film bad, but it does lead to an unfair comparison, even if this film is a direct sequel.
Is “Gladiator II” on the level of “Gladiator?” No. Does it have some historical inaccuracies? Yes. Does it still work as a fun blockbuster to go see in theaters? Absolutely. With minor nitpicks aside, the film works best when framing it as Ridley Scott recapturing what he did best with the sword and sandals epic, rather than the film being a sequel that surpasses the first movie. “Gladiator II” provides plenty of entertainment and incredible sequences to marvel at, but at the end of the day, it wasn’t a film many were expecting to live up to the first, and it doesn’t. This is a film solely for fans of the first movie and action movies in general, but make sure expectations are lowered for more enjoyment.
