When the first Gladiator (2000) was released in theaters at the turn of the millennium, it was part of a much different cinematic landscape. The decade prior was one of the last eras that a type of movie known as the “prestige blockbuster” would dominate the landscape. The “prestige blockbuster” was a film like a historical epic or an intimate drama that could perform at the box office the same way that a blockbuster action film would. These were the kinds of movies that would win a bunch of awards while at the same time making profits in the hundreds of millions for their studios. These were also sometimes big ambitious movies too, but with a much more serious tone than the average blockbuster. The 90’s weren’t the first period of Hollywood’s history where these kinds of movies would dominate. You can look back all the way to Gone With the Wind (1937) to see an example of a historical epic being a blockbuster success, and the trend would carry over into the 50’s and 60’s, with widescreen spectacles like Spartacus (1960) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962) became monster hits in addition to winning lots of awards and acclaim. The 1990’s in particular feels like one of the last big eras where these kinds of movies would prosper, starting off with Kevin Costner’s Dances With Wolves in 1990, and continuing with films like Forrest Gump (1994) and Braveheart (1995) soon after, and eventually peaking with Titanic in 1997. The decade that would follow would see a major shift away from the “prestige blockbuster” as big historical epics would fail to ignite like they did in the 90’s and other genres like fantasy and comic book films would begin to take over. It was a dramatic shift that probably took Hollywood a bit by surprise and it would take several more box office bombs to seal the “prestige blockbusters” fate. Sure, there are standouts that still work, like last year’s Oppenheimer (2023), but the “prestige blockbuster” really feels like an anomaly now rather than a common occurrence. And the movie that really did feel like the last of it’s kind for a while was Ridley Scott’s Gladiator.
When it first premiered, Gladiator was not exactly seen as anything special. But after it’s modest opening in May 2000, Gladiator just kept sticking around, and by the end of that summer it was one of the highest grossing films of the season. This was surprising given how old-fashioned it was. It was definitely a throwback to the old sword and sandals epics of the past that had defined the last time the “prestige blockbuster” had ruled Hollywood. Though it felt classic in it’s storytelling, it did feature some cutting edge visuals in it’s presentation. The recreation of the Roman Coliseum in particular was a groundbreaking work of visual effects for it’s time, and the movie won it’s effects team an Oscar for the effort. There was also the usual visual flair that Ridley Scott had been known for with movies like Blade Runner (1982) and Alien (1979) that helped it to stand out from other sword and sandal epics of the past. But what I think helped to captivate audiences even more than that was the magnetic performance by Russell Crowe in the role of Maximus; the general who became a slave, who then became a gladiator who challenged an empire, as the tag line stated. Maximus is one of cinema’s greatest heroes, and Crowe’s performance is widely praised even to this day. The movie went on to win 5 Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actor for Crowe, though sadly Ridley Scott went home empty handed. In the years since, Scott has tried many times to replicate the magic that he succeeded to capture with Gladiator, but to little avail, with movies like Kingdom of Heaven (2005), Robin Hood (2010) and The Last Duel (2021) all falling short at the box office. Still, he remains an active filmmaker well into his 80’s without showing any signs of slowing down. Even after making Gladiator, he contemplated a return to the same story one day, trying to come up with different ideas about how to continue the story into another chapter. It wouldn’t be easy, given that (spoilers) Maximus is dead at the end of the film. He went through numerous drafts of a sequel, including a supernatural one written by musician Nick Cave. But, 24 years later, Scott has finally landed on a story that he feels does justice to the original and now we have Gladiator II releasing into theaters. The only quest remains is if it is a worthy successor, or are we not entertained.
Taking place 16 years after the events of the original Gladiator, we begin in the midst of a battle between a free city on the Northern African coast and the might of the Roman naval fleet. Led by General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal), the Romans take the city in quick order and imprison the soldiers on the other side. Now slaves at the mercy of Rome, the remaining “barbarian” soldiers are taken to the gladiatorial arenas on the outskirts of the city where they are going to be auctioned off to the highest bidder looking for more stock to showcase at the fights in the mighty Coliseum. One soldier named Hanno (Paul Mescal) proves to be an especially skilled fighter, and he peaks the interest of Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a former gladiator himself who now makes a fortune as supplier of goods for the Roman armies. Macrinus sees the fury in Hanno’s eyes, with a will towards vengeance, and he hopes to use him as a weapon in his own ambitions for the control of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile, General Acacius is secretly plotting his own challenge towards stopping the corruption that has infected Rome, with the twin Emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) representing all the worst qualities of leadership in the crumbling empire. Acacius is aided by a handful of senators who were loyal to the great Marcus Aurelius, as well as loyal to his surviving daughter Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), Acacius’ wife. However, plans are turned on their head when Lucilla witnesses the gladiatorial fight set up to honor Acacius’ recent victory. She sees Hanno fighting in the arena and immediately recognizes him as her son Lucius Verus Aurelius, the true heir to the throne of Caesar. After the fall of Emperor Commodus and the death of Maximus in the Coliseum, Lucilla knew that her young son wouldn’t be safe in the power vacuum that followed, so she ensured that he would be taken far away from Rome so that he could survive. But now he has return all these years later, with hatred for Rome in his heart. And with many schemes all playing out in and around the heart of the Empire, what ultimate fate will Lucius bring to the the future of Rome. Will he hasten it’s destruction or will he assume his birthright and end the corruption that has infected the Empire?
When the decision is made to do a legacy sequel to a beloved film many, many years after the fact, there are a lot of risks involved. The primary risk is that the movie has to escape the shadow of the film that came before it. People already have expectations about what they want based on what they love about the original film, and the sequel then has to both meet those expectations and then surpass them in order to justify it’s existence. There are several examples of legacy sequels that hit their mark, like Creed (2015), Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and Top Gun: Maverick (2022), but there are also a lot of examples of sequels that completely dropped the ball like Blues Brothers 2000 (2000) and Independence Day: Resurgence (2016). So, with 24 years in between the first and second films, how does Gladiator II stack up as a legacy sequel? While it is far from being one of the worst legacy sequels ever made it is also sadly not very good. The biggest problem with the movie is that it fails to escape the shadow of it’s far superior predecessor. Ridley Scott’s original film had this operatic verve to it, with everything from the performances to the staging to the music all creating a spectacle that felt grand. A lot of that is missing in Gladiator II. While there are some things that Ridley Scott demonstrates that he can still do very well, namely directing the action set pieces, there are also many signs that he has lost a little bit of that golden touch as he’s gotten older. Of course, it is still impressive that at the age of 86 that he’s still capable of pulling off a movie of this kind of scale. At a time when many of his colleagues have either slowed down or have long retired, he’s still putting out a movie at the rate of one a year, which has only cemented his legendary status. But, with Gladiator II and last year’s Napoleon (2023), Ridley is also showing signs that while he still has command over the visual style of his film he doesn’t quite have the command over the story anymore.
Where I think the problem lies is with the script to this movie. It’s kind of remarkable that the original Gladiator, with it’s collection of three screenwriters (David Franzoni, William Nicholson, and John Logan) had a more coherent and memorable script than the one for the sequel written by a single screenwriter. The original film had a singular focus to it’s story, and that was showing the incredible journey of Maximus as he goes from general, to slave, to a gladiator that challenged the Emperor. Nearly a quarter century later, we still quote lines from Gladiator, and some of them are pretty profound. One line in particular that I love is “What we do in life echoes in Eternity,” which this sequel also recognizes as a powerful statement as it gets quoted a lot. The script for Gladiator II, written by David Scarpa (who also scripted Napoleon) doesn’t have anything profound to say, and it spends far too many scenes calling back to the superior writing of the original. For the most part, the movie just ends up being a repeat of the first film; with Lucius following the same trajectory as Maximus. And this leads to yet another big flaw with the film, which is the character of Lucius. He is a pale imitation of the character of Maximus. The film never allows him the time to develop as a character, other than just showing how he is driven by vengeance over the death of his loved one in battle. Paul Mescal is certainly not a bad choice to play the role. He’s a capable actor and he certainly has the impressive physique to play a gladiator. But the script just gives him this hollow, ill-defined character to work with. When Russell Crowe played Maximus, he created a iconic hero; a man you would want leading you into battle, and the movie clearly defined what motivated him, with his sense of justice and seeking to live up to the ideals of Rome that Marcus Aurelius instilled in him. For Gladiator II, it seemed like Ridley Scott and David Scarpa were at a loss for how to continue on with the story since Maximus dies at the end of the original, and they just looked at the character of Lucius and decided he’ll do and tried to shoehorn his story into a Maximus 2.0.
While Lucius remains a sadly hollow focal point of this movie, there are still other elements of this film that actually help to lift it up from being a complete failure. First and foremost, the presence of Denzel Washington helps to save this film. Denzel is working on a whole different level than the entire rest of the cast, and he helps to breathe much needed life into the movie. I love the fact that he doesn’t even bother doing an accent and just plays the role like it’s an extension of himself. All the other actors are speaking with the usual dignified British accents that you hear in these kinds of period dramas, and Denzel sounds like he just walked off the set of American Gangster (2007). It shouldn’t work, but it does and Denzel’s scenes are by far the best part of the movie. You can tell he’s having the best time on screen as he gets to peacock around in flowing Roman robes. He also gets all the best one-liners in the script, which he delivers with an incredible amount of swagger. Sadly nothing else in the movie rises up to what Denzel is bringing into the film. While it is nice to see Pedro Pascal present in a Roman epic like this, which he does seem to fit in well as that Roman soldier gear looks good on him, he sadly is underutilized in the story and his character General Acacius is kind of pointless in the grand scheme of things. I kind of wonder if the movie would’ve been better if it centered on his character rather than on Lucius. The performances of Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger as the twin emperors also feel like pale imitations when stacked up against Joaquin Phoenix’s memorably camp portrayal of Commodus in the original Gladiator. And while it is nice to see Connie Nielsen return to the role she played 24 years ago in the first movie, she also does feel underutilized in the film. Basically, in terms of the cast, the only ground where this movie surpasses the original is with the inclusion of Denzel Washington in the film, as he’s the only element of the movie that feels like something new.
In terms of Ridley Scott’s direction, he seems to be most at home with the battles in the Coliseum. These moments are definitely the ones that feel most alive in the movie. One thing that I was happy to see was Ridley Scott getting to finally realize an idea that he had to scrap in the first movie, which is a fight between the gladiators and a warrior riding a rhinoceros. Probably due to the limitations of computer animation at the time, Ridley was not able to get a realistic looking rhino to work on screen in the original, but with the advancements over the last couple decades, he now is able to make this rhino fight look the way he wanted and it did work in this sequel. There’s also a naval battle that takes place in a flooded Coliseum that while is completely at odd with the true history of the real arena nevertheless makes for an exciting moment in the film. One thing for sure is that Ridley Scott is very good at making his movies look great on screen and Gladiator II is no different in that department. The money put into the set designs and visual effects are all well spent and Scott can still deliver the goods in this regard. But the sum of everything else just doesn’t gel together. I’ll give the film this, it definitely doesn’t feel it’s 2 hour and 28 minute length, and it moves at a brisk pace. But, the editing of the movie also doesn’t have the same flow as the original film does, which went a long way towards giving it that operatic feel. Here, the editing is very basic and just becomes a means towards moving us from plot point to plot point. Also a major downgrade from the first film; the music. Hans Zimmer wrote the score for the first Gladiator, and it still stands as one of his greatest works, with tracks like “Now We Are Free” being some of the greatest pieces of music ever written for film. Zimmer sadly didn’t return for this film, and instead Ridley Scott turned to Harry Gregson-Williams instead, who’s been writing the music for most or Scott’s more recent films. He’s a decent composer, but his sound is a lot more basic than the experimental work that Hans Zimmer does with his scores, and that difference is palpable in this film. The music just doesn’t have that grandiosity to it, and it even has the audacity to call back to Zimmer’s much better tracks in moments that don’t earn it. It’s another element of the movie where you definitely notice the fall off from the first film, and it sadly also makes the experience that much more disappointing.
In the immediate years after it’s original release, Gladiator inspired this brief revival of the sword and sandals epic, with many of the big studios hoping to cash in on the same success that Gladiator achieved. Unfortunately, it was short lived. Warner Brothers struck out twice with both Wolfgang Petersen’s Troy (2004) and Oliver Stone’s Alexander (2004) back to back, and 20th Century Fox also failed with Ridley Scott’s own Kingdom of Heaven (2005). Gladiator II feels like another one of those failed imitators that tried to be the next Gladiator but couldn’t muster it. It seems like Ridley Scott himself has been trying to chase Gladiator many times over the years and always come up short, even with a movie that is directly tied with it. While it is admirable that Ridley has managed to get this long in the making sequel across the finish line, it also will be looked at as an unfortunate footnote to one of his masterpieces rather than a classic that will stand strong on it’s own. The only thing that stands out as better in this sequel is the performance of Denzel Washington, which gives this movie much needed life. Otherwise, everything from the story to the characters just feels like a step down from the original film. I don’t think it should reflect poorly on Ridley Scott. He is a legend multiple times over and the fact that he’s still tireless in his old age is kind of inspiring. But we can’t expect him to keep delivering Gladiator quality films anymore. If anything, he’s been much better in recent years making movies that are different from his usual historical epic formula. I really liked his historical drama The Last Duel (2021) which took an unconventional approach to the way it told it’s story through multiple points of view. I think Scott can still deliver if he has an interesting script to work with. Gladiator II just feels less like it’s own movie and more like an obligation. Scott wanted to see if he could still make another Gladiator and he wanted to deliver on the promise that he made for a sequel to the original. But honestly, he should have left Gladiator alone. It was a perfectly constructed story that reached a definitive conclusion. There was nothing more to say about the story of Maximus, and this sequel proves it with it’s own story just feeling like a hollow retread. It’s not a complete, embarrassing failure as there are good things in it (namely everything Denzel bring to the film) but on the whole it will never be remembered as fondly as the original classic. To sum it up, no I was not entertained.
Rating: 6/10