Review: Gladiator II

In which this humble writer finally sees a new movie--specifically, Ridley Scott's Roman epic sequel.

Something that I don’t do nearly as often as I used to is go out and see new movies. Somehow, I was able to square away from time and see something currently in theaters. That film was Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II, the sequel to his 2000 Russell Crowe-starring Oscar-winning film.

The film stars Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, and Connie Nielsen.

This is how the summary of the film on the IMDB describes it:

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.

Getting into my thoughts on the film… I think the two lead performances by Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal were great. They’re two stellar actors and I think both were perfect in their roles. Mescal gave a performance that felt very Crowe-esque in some regards (though I think he brought an emotional volatility to his performance while Crowe was defined by his stoicism). Pascal is a profoundly charismatic performer whom I always enjoy watching. I did feel like he was a bit wasted/underused in this film, which was frustrating, but I still enjoyed what he brought to the table as Acacius.

Washington’s performance received some plaudits (he got a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actor), but I found his portrayal of Macrinus to be distracting, over the top, and out of place. While Mescal and Pascal felt right in this film taking place in Ancient Rome, Washington felt much too modern to fit in. The two emperors, portrayed by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger, felt a bit cartoon-ish at times but it didn’t distract me quite as much as Washington’s performance.

Much like the 2000 film, there are some great set pieces in Gladiator II, which take place in the Colosseum in Rome, including a sea battle in the arena that is apparently historically accurate. But though there is some excitement in the spectacle of these battles (and there are some more small scale fights that command our attention), they’re ultimately not as visually interesting or engaging as what you saw in the original film.

]The CGI feels very prominent and noticeable if not distracting. The plot also felt a bit meandering and shaggy, unlike its predecessor. There are too many threads and narratives within the film that it became impossible to do them justice; therefore, certain elements of the film felt very tacked on and incomplete. You also got quiet. a few moments that not just called back to the first film, but pretty blatantly repeated it. While there has to be some of that in any sequel, it felt a bit heavy handed and elicited some eye rolls from me.

I think Gladiator II is an example of a sequel that is limited because of how it follows in the footsteps of the first film. If I didn’t have the associations and knowledge of Gladiator, I would have thought a bit higher of this film. But I couldn’t help but notice how much retreading and repeating there was in Gladiator II.

I also found the film to be somewhat visually uninteresting. While there were times that the flourishes of Gladiator felt a bit over the top, it felt unique. Gladiator II has a look that’s like…. a lot of other films produced today. I don’t think it’s a bad film, and I certainly enjoyed getting out to the movies and seeing something, but Gladiator II was a film that left me wanting more. You can take performances by two actors I really enjoy (Mescal and Pascal), but that’s not going to be enough on its own.