“Gladiator 2” is directed by the 86-year-old Ridley Scott and serves as a sequel to his 2000 magnum opus, which was nominated for 12 Academy Awards and won 5 (Best Actor, Costume Design, Best Picture, Sound, and Visual Effects). “Gladiator” was hailed as an astounding cinematic achievement that led to the resurrection of the Roman epic—a genre that had been dormant since the release of “The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)”.
The film was not particularly historically accurate, but what it lacked in authenticity, it more than made up for with its gripping drama, larger-than-life characters, intense and meaningful dialogue, bravura action and spectacle, and an atmosphere that remains impossible to replicate even today. It was one of those rare films that felt perfect and untouchable.
However, when Ridley Scott himself set out to create a sequel, it sparked some curiosity. While I was confident that it would be a bad idea and would only tarnish the greatness of the original, I must admit I was still excited to see what Scott would bring to the table in terms of action and spectacle, hoping that he could at least match the monumental achievements of the first film in these aspects. What nobody could have prepared me for, however, was the unmitigated disaster that this sequel turned out to be—even with the director of the original at the helm.
The Story:
The IMDb synopsis of “Gladiator 2” reads: “After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.” This sounds like an undeniably compelling idea on paper. Combined with the story of a general who wants to restore Rome to its people and end the tyranny of those same emperors but unfortunately finds himself at loggerheads with Lucius, who is determined to kill him at any cost for killing his wife in battle, the plot becomes even more interesting. The political ambitions of a slave owner aspiring to become the king of Rome and willing to surrender to any evil to achieve his objective add another layer of complexity and unpredictability to the story adding to the intrigue of watching it all unfold in a Ridley Scott epic, complete with his shortcomings but also his celebrated cinematic qualities.
I was excited enough for this film to take the trouble of attending an almost late-night IMAX screening, 1,000 kilometres away from home, after enduring a grueling day at work that started at 3 a.m. My only expectations were to be awed by the visual and auditory spectacle and to be captivated by the characters and performances.
A Visual Spectacle That Demands Respect but Lacks Impact:
The version of the film that I watched didn’t fully utilize the potential of the IMAX screen due to its aspect ratio, but the action and scale of the film undeniably demanded the premium format to be appreciated as Ridley Scott intended it to be. This was the only aspect of the film where it truly delivered, offering some engrossing and inspired viewing.
Drawing heavily from “Gladiator” as a reference point, the sequel uses the original as a template, crafting similar but grander action set pieces that unfold with energy and gusto. Whether it was the opening battle, reminiscent of Maximus’s fight with the barbarians in the first film, or the first gladiator combat sequence featuring creatures that resembled primates but were far more ferocious, I found myself drawing parallels to the original at every step. The scale and execution of these sequences were impressive, but none of them carried the heart, emotional depth, or dramatic weight that made the original’s action so memorable.
I still vividly recall the action sequence involving the character of “Tigris of Gaul”. In the sequel, a similar scene is presented with a character who bears an uncanny resemblance to Tigris but rides a rhino instead of relying on tigers to complicate matters for his opponents. It was during this sequence that the lack of emotional resonance and impact in the action scenes became painfully apparent. Despite the complexity and massive scale of these action set pieces, they felt hollow, serving as jaw-dropping spectacles designed solely for sensory overload.
One still has to applaud Scott for his ambition and courage in undertaking such a monumental project. At 86 years old, he joins the ranks of a select few directors over 70 (James Cameroon, George Miller) who have envisioned and executed action sequences with the creativity, excitement and vigor reminiscent of filmmakers half their age.
The Painfully Apparent Shortcomings in Screenplay and Dialogue:
The original “Gladiator” became an instant classic largely due to its impeccable writing and seamless blending of gripping drama, intense action, and compelling political intrigue. Its dialogues were both inspiring and memorable. Unfortunately, the sequel fails miserably on all these fronts.
The story consists of three distinct tracks, yet none are developed well enough to leave any lasting impact on the audience. The arc of Lucius (Paul Mescal), which carries an element of surprise and a core tragedy similar to Maximus’s journey, should have been deeply moving. However, it is presented and concluded so casually and carelessly that it generates no emotional resonance whatsoever.
The Roman generalissimo (played by Pedro Pascal) fares even worse. His character meant to parallel Maximus, lacks both the emotional depth and the commanding presence needed to draw attention or inspire. He neither has the gravitas of a leader nor the emotional weight to justify his actions. The climactic showdown between him and Lucius aims to replicate the epic confrontation between Maximus and Commodus but ends up being as effective as a Remdesivir shot to a dying COVID-19 patient.
The third track involving Denzel Washington, who plays a slave trader with an eye on the Roman throne and behaves like any of the characters Washington portrayed in some of his better films, started off as a means to an end and quickly spiralled into cringe comedy. I was constantly bugged by the feeling that he would end up saying, “My Nigger” (from Training Day), to one of his slave gladiators. That’s how poorly envisioned and written the character and the track were.
The dialogues of the film feel as if they were generated by an AI or picked directly out of the original. Using memorable lines from the original could have been a good idea if it were done aesthetically and kept limited. Sadly, Scott and his writers take an approach to this aspect of the film that is akin to the not-so-subtle dramatic cues of Ekta Kapoor in her daily soaps. Scott punctuates these lines either by taking us back to the original or by repeating them so many times that we are forced to remember where they came from. I despised this aspect of the writing and execution.
Poor Performances from the Ensemble Cast:
On rare occasions, actors are so good that they can elevate substandard content through the power of their performances. They are magicians who can make you believe anything. The true power of performances lies in their ability to manipulate and inspire. Considering this as a benchmark, the performances in “Gladiator 2” fall woefully short.
Paul Mescal leads the cast and has the most important role in the film, reminiscent of everything Maximus was once he became a gladiator. Unfortunately, Mescal is neither able to convey the tragedy stemming from the murder of his wife nor the betrayal and abandonment that he believes he suffered at the hands of his mother. The character’s descent into madness and rage, which was supposed to make him a dangerous gladiator, was also completely unconvincing. I could never accept him as a man capable of achieving the feats that his character is shown to accomplish. The poor writing of his character (especially its progression toward the end) and Mescal’s inability to elevate it in any manner robbed the film of its single most important aspect: an inspiring protagonist. I am surprised that Ridley Scott never tried to course-correct his performance in terms of the tone and the rendering of the emotions as he toggles between different circumstances. This soon becomes a recurring problem for all the performances in the film.
Shockingly, the talented Pedro Pascal brings the charisma and heroism of a brick to the character of the generalissimo. He is so ineffective that there were moments when I forgot that he was in the film. Denzel Washington is undeniably entertaining, and he does a fantastic job of playing himself, but that negatively impacts the character and destroys what little credibility the film’s storytelling had. Surprisingly, once you start enjoying the film as a Kannada crowd-pleaser, his performance feels like the only bright spot in terms of the performances. Connie Nielsen’s strong, layered, and nuanced portrayal in the original is reduced here to a role that exists solely to facilitate the looming finale of the film.
My Worst Fears Have Come True:
The worst thing “Gladiator 2” could do was destroy the legacy of the original and its protagonist. Scott does exactly that by revealing that Lucius was Maximus and Lucilla’s child. I rooted for Maximus in the original because he was fighting to avenge a murdered wife and child. Now, knowing that he committed adultery completely destroys my respect for the character and decimates the high drama and inspirational elements that made “Gladiator” so moving and satisfying.
This was just one of the many things that this film did that will permanently scar my memories of the original and make it a far lesser film than it was. For me, this was the worst crime the sequel could have committed and it has done so with phenomenal success.
Rating: 2/5 (2 out of 5 Stars)