Long, messy, violent, and exceedingly silly, Gladiator 2 is a still an entertaining sword-and-sandals epic.
Has anyone checked in on Ridley Scott lately? The man is 86 years old, and to quote the musical
Hamilton, "Why are you [directing] like you're running out of time?". Fresh off of last year's bloated and deeply strange
Napoleon, Scott's
Gladiator 2 asks the question, what if we remade the original but added CGI monkeys and turned the acting quality down by about 50%?
Before we dive in, remember that the original Gladiator won FIVE Academy Awards in 2001, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Russell Crowe), and Best Supporting Actor (Joaquin Phoenix). The movie had a chokehold on the American public, which I think may be attributable to the brief love affair we also had with Russell Crowe, who from 1999 to 2001 received three consecutive Academy Award nominations.
First, a brief and fascinating detour into how we got this sequel
Soon after the success of Gladiator, plans were quickly made to start drafting a follow-up script. Ideas changed hands several times until Nick Cave — yes, that Nick Cave — was commissioned to draft one. It involved Maximus leaving purgatory and being sent back in time by the Roman gods to kill Jesus Christ and prevent the inevitable spread of Christianity. Maximus then gets cursed to live forever and fights in major battles for the next 2,000 years, which is essentially just a rip-off of the Casca: Eternal Mercenary series of novels by Barry Sadler.
Surprising no one, this Cave script didn't go anywhere (Stephen Spielberg actually put the final kibosh on it!) and the idea of sequel dwindled for a decade until Scott revisited the idea and finally settled on David Scarpa, who he worked with on Napoleon, to write script for Gladiator 2.
Wait wait, I also have to talk about Ridley Scott for a second
Scott is perhaps the only director I can think of who, for nearly 50 years, has made countless successful films with no overarching directorial signature. Wes Anderson, Hitchcock, Tarantino, De Palma, Burton — odds are you can name some recurring themes or styles in their oeuvres. This holds true even if you're not a real fan! That's how indelible directing style can be.
Meanwhile, Scott is over here bouncing around from Alien to Thelma and Louise to GI Jane to Gladiator to the Martian to House of Gucci. The only thing I can think of is that the man is dedicated to creating compelling stories on-screen. His movies are very likable, for lack of a better word. They're also compulsively watchable. In his old age, Scott's also gotten very, very good at pure spectacle. Even though Napoleon is a bit of a slog, the sheer scope of the battle scenes alone are worth watching.
Okay, on to the plot as best I understand it
Maximus is dead, to begin with. But it turns out Lucius, Lucilla's son (Lucilla is also the daughter of the former emperor Marcus Aurelius and was the sister of Commodus), is actually the son of Maximus. After the events of the first film, she sends young Lucius off to what appears to be Egypt for safe keeping. But even that's not safe, so he eventually flees to another part of northern Africa and lives as a simple farmer/warrior, taking the alias Hanno.
Rome eventually comes calling, however, in the form of an army commanded by Acacius (Pedro Pascal). During the battle, Lucius's wife is killed. This is meant to evoke the same sort of gravitas as Maximus' entire family dying, but it just doesn't hit the same, though he swears vengeance on all of Rome and General Acacius in particular.
Lucius is taken as prisoner, and ends up fighting before the slaver/gladiator trader/plotter Acrinus, who promises Lucius the head of Acacius if he keeps fighting for him in the Colosseum.
Meanwhile, there are two evil twin-emperors of Rome, Geta and Caracalla. Hanno/Lucius fights his way through many battles in the Colosseum, including baboons, rhinos, sharks, and the Preatorian guard. His mom, Lucilla, realizes who he is. Also her boyfriend is Acacius, and turns out he's a actually good guy who hates what Rome has become and is planning to overthrow the twins. He gets caught and captured, however. Lucius discovers this and takes up his mantle and organizes the Roman troops upon the eventual death of the twins.
You know what, none of this makes sense as I write it down. It's too complicated, and for no good reason. You had to be there. The gist: a man is angry and he has lots of fights. Lucius is actually the secret son of Maximus and Lucilla (which is odd considering how much Maximus tells us he loves his wife and OTHER son in the first movie). There are weird, debauched, and scheming politicians in Rome. A monkey gets named Consul. There's sharks in the Colosseum. Paul Mescal has incredible thigh muscles. That's all you really know to know.
The things that work
Now's a good time to remind you that, despite its flaws, I had a blast while watching this — it's entertaining, gruesome, sprawling, and visually stunning. Seeing vast legions spread out upon the plains outside of Rome was incredible.
But is this movie at all accurate to Roman history? Of course not! I like to think of it as historical fantasy. You take bits of inspiration from the past — many of these characters existed, it's true — and then just say, "fuck, it we ball!" It's a fun world to visit if you can get past the glaring anachronisms in every other scene.
The standout performances are Denzel Washington (he steals every scene he's in, and his acting is so sublimely natural and devious that it's almost awe-inspiring to watch) and Joseph Quinn (he matches Joaquin Phoenix's demented emperor vibe to a T). They are unhinged, wild, and perfectly cast.
The opening naval battle/attack scene is breathtaking, and you really feel the deplorable might of Rome's imperial ambitions. Every fight scene, in fact, is superbly choreographed, and the foley editor really put in overtime on this one. It's a loud, crunchy, bone-crushing, blood-spurty feast for the ears.
The things that don't
Guys, I just don't like Paul Mescal. He doesn't have the charisma or charm to pull off main character energy for a role like this. Also, his character spends half of the movie resisting Rome and rejecting his heritage, then in one single scene he reconciles with his mother to reclaim his birth right. This, in my opinion, is harder to believe than sharks in the Colosseum (I say this in my head in the same cadence as the "they did surgery on a grape" meme).
And while I do love Pedro Pascal, he is stiff in his performance of General Acacius. I was, frankly, shocked by this. He's usually a great actor, but I suppose wooden dialogue like "No...more...war" doesn't exactly give him much to work with.
Finally, there are CGI baboons in Gladiator 2 that look like something out of the Hercules TV show from the 90s. I'm guessing they blew most of the budget on eye makeup and 10,000 cloaks.
Final verdict
It's a fun romp in the theater, but it's not a serious movie by any means. I will probably watch it again for the sheer epic-ness of it.
--
The Math
Baseline Score: 6/10
Bonuses: Denzel Washington puts on a hell of a performance, and is pure gold. Joseph Quinn as the evil Emperor Geta impresses. Production design, as per usual, is breathtaking, and the Scott manages to capture a new look at the breadth and scope of Ancient Rome.
POSTED BY: Haley Zapal, new NoaF contributor and lawyer-turned-copywriter living in Atlanta, Georgia. A co-host of Hugo Award-winning podcast Hugo, Girl!, she posts on Instagram as @cestlahaley. She loves nautical fiction, growing corn and giving them pun names like Timothee Chalamaize, and thinking about fried chicken.
