By Keith Walther | Rose Law Group Reporter
If a script for a sequel was to be written by AI, this is what it would look like, empty and devoid of life. 24 years after “Gladiator,” which won five Oscars including Best Picture, comes the sequel, “Gladiator II.” Ridley Scott returns as the director, and he basically regurgitates the main story themes from the original and applies it to new characters. It may be dressed up in fancy visual effects, but the paper-thin story shows the film for what it is, a hollowed out rotting log.
The movie begins very similarly to the first with an epic battle instigated by the Romans to conquer a seaside village. Led by General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal), they annihilate their victims, inadvertently killing Lucius’ (Paul Mescal) wife and enslaving him. Fueled by vengeance, Lucius keeps his identity hidden while taking out his bloodthirsty aggression against fellow gladiators and even some monkeys in the games.
Seeing an opportunity to obtain power in Rome, Macrinus (Denzel Washington) uses Lucius’ lopsided victories to his advantage, gaining favor with the twin maniacal emperors, Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). When Lucius’ mother Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) learns of her son’s arrival as a gladiator, she immediately conspires with like-minded politicians to free her son and put him in a position of power and influence. However, sometimes the best-laid plans have a way of failing, putting Lucius’ dream of returning Rome to its people in jeopardy.
Director Ridley Scott used to be known for his attention to detail and commitment to perfection but has since opted for a churn and burn approach, taking shortcuts wherever possible. He took roughly five to six months in 1999 to film “Gladiator,” while only taking three to four months cumulatively to film “Gladiator II,” with a five-month hiatus in the middle due to the SAG-AFTRA strike. This haste shows up in the finished product with scenes feeling rushed, revealing a disappointing level of sloppiness that was also there for his underwhelming project last year, “Napoleon.”
Like “Napoleon,” Ridley opts for more spectacle than authenticity in “Gladiator II.” To be clear, this is a fictional story, which is fine, but it is set in a historical context with real life historical figures. Ridley’s ambivalence to facts creates a number of noticeable errors that destroy any credibility. The obscenest of these is a scene featuring a full-scale naval battle reenactment with crazed man-eating sharks within the Colosseum, making for an utterly preposterous moment in the film. The Colosseum is nowhere near large enough for war ships with manned rowers to maneuver in the confined space, even if they somehow were able to fill it with water while preventing massive flooding of the extensive tunnels and rooms directly beneath the arena floor. Not to mention, Romans may have known of the existence of great white sharks, but they had no capability to capture and move them. Even the dialogue is erroneous, evidenced by the Macrinus character telling another character to “hose” the gladiator off, which is a modern-day reference to cleaning, since hoses were not invented back in 200 A.D.
Since he copies almost the same thematic format of the first film, Ridley loses the emotional impact and draw that the first one had. In fact, the story so closely resembles the original, it becomes completely predictable. He then layers the film with one drawn out speech after another in between battle sequences that try too hard to supply contrived meaning to the fights. Even the score failed to carry the same dramatic impact the first one had, namely for the reason that Hans Zimmer was not retained for the sequel. The visuals are stunning, however, especially during the action sequences which provide some surface value entertainment.
Overall, the acting is a significant step down from the first film. Russell Crowe brought a fiery passion that made for an unforgettable performance in the original. Paul Mescal, in the same type of role, is unable to shoulder the weight of this responsibility. His emotions come across forced, lacking intentionality and gravitas, making for a highly forgettable performance. The young inexperienced actor has a lot to learn before becoming a believable leading man.
Denzel Washington is the one bright spot in the otherwise underwhelming cast. His performance in a puppet master, antagonist type of role comes across natural and credible. He adds a seemingly effortless swagger and attitude that is intriguing, making his character likeable yet deplorable at the same time. This is his first supporting role since 2002’s “Antwone Fisher,” which could earn him his tenth Oscar nomination as an actor despite the film’s mistakes.
There are plenty of razzle dazzles to make you feel entertained at times, but if you’re looking for something with depth, this is not it. “Gladiator II” lacks a soul to provide any meaning to its fight, creating a watchable yet vapid film. This is one sequel that never pokes its head out from the massive shadow of its predecessor.
This movie earns:
