“Gladiator II” Review: A Solid & Greatly Entertaining Epic, But It Fails To Surpass Its Predecessor

For the longest time now, filmmakers have been no strangers to creating jaw-dropping historical epics that tickle our fantasies about the “old world.” Before the turn of the millennium, many great works of inspired fiction arose for us to indulge in. But it was during the 2000s that we saw the most cinematically-impactful historical flick to ever hit the big screen – “Gladiator.” To this day, cinephiles and critics alike tout it as a legendary epic, with many still singing its praises and quoting iconic lines to this day.

After 24 years, the film’s tale was due for a revival, and the legacy sequel, “Gladiator II,” is looking to live up to high expectations. But does it manage to attain the shining status that its predecessor holds, or does it lie flat on the sand?

The film opens with a man named Hanno (Paul Mescal), a simple warrior living a peaceful life with his wife in ancient Numidia, when his province is attacked by the Roman Empire, and the couple is called upon to defend their land against the invaders. The esteemed Roman general Marcus Acacius (played by Pedro Pascal) leads the siege and, indirectly, kills Hanno’s wife and takes Hanno himself as a prisoner of war.

From there, our vengeful protagonist is forced into slavery and is taken in by Macrinus (played by Denzel Washington), a former slave with grand ambitions. In the pits, Hanno hears the story of Maximus and later resolves to fight for a better life.

Before proceeding with the review proper, we’d like to preface this by admitting that we had incredibly low expectations for the film, largely because it is a legacy sequel, a film designed to cash in on audiences’ nostalgia. We went in with that mindset, and, long story short, we were genuinely surprised at how well the film performs.

It is a gripping story from start to finish. The film has a healthy amount of tight action sequences, memorable setpieces, and a lot of political intrigue that keeps things interesting outside of the Colosseum. Thankfully, the team that worked behind this film was also the one behind the original, so many, if not all of the details from the 2000s remain intact and consistent in this instalment. 

Being decades apart, the film is obviously a far cry compared to the original in terms of set pieces and CGI. We see the glory of Rome in bright sepia colours; we also get to the deep blues of Numidian waters. It is a gorgeous film that, though it largely takes place in an arena, takes its time when it comes to exploring life outside of it. It is in these scenes that political intrigue is explored. 

Of course, when you consider the film’s premise, you’d automatically think that it’s a testosterone-filled action flick designed to cash in on the male’s “warrior” instinct, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. It has a lot of finesse when it comes to dealing with its more quiet sequences. And both the action and quiet sequences stand out thanks to the performances of the respective actors.

Mescal is an incredible performer all throughout the film, able to play the roles of a loving husband, and later, a vengeful but cunning warrior, and even an inspiring hero. Naturally, being an angry slave, you’d often see him play out those loud scenes. On the other side of the spectrum is Connie Nielsen, who reprises her role as the wise ruler Lucilla. It is her scenes with Paul that drive a whole new kind of conflict that happens outside of the arena, which we will not elaborate on to avoid spoilers. And in the middle of these two is Pascal, whose performance demands attention. It is through his performance that we learn to like a would-be antagonist.

Pascal’s Acacius isn’t the only antagonist, though. There is also Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger’s Emperor Geta and Emperor Caracalla, fictional hedonistic twin emperors. They are among the larger villains of the story who would do anything to remain in power. They are a breed of antagonist you love to hate, but they aren’t really given the opportunity to shine as tyrants compared to Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus in the original movie. For comparison, you may think of the two as similar to Big Jack Horner from “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” – a villain who is simply evil, and rather than fun, they are utterly depraved.

Our ire instead belongs to Washington’s Macrinus. He is a clever and conniving antagonist who leverages whatever little power he has to gain more of it. He is a cruel and calculating character that will take subtle steps that are secretly measured to attain his goal. If anything, he is this film’s Commodus. What makes him more memorable than the twins is the fact that he is like Acacius in the movie, but in reverse; he is someone we initially like but later grow to despise.

Of course, the film is not perfect. There are many instances where we have to suspend our disbelief for the sake of the film. If you’re looking for historical accuracy, then this isn’t for you, as the film takes much more liberties with the source material compared to the original. One such scene is the naval battle in the Colosseum. It seems a bit out of place, but upon further research, we found that the event actually happened and is historically accurate. Where they lose us is with the sharks swimming about.

We’d like to think that this scene is a showcase of how far CGI has come. When the original 2000 film was being made, it used real tigers that almost killed Russel Crowe, with some practical dummies mixed in for the close-ups and kills. Thanks to modern technology, no animal or human actively harmed each other in the making of the sequel.

The script is also imperfect. There are a lot of plot holes that we will not explore here to once again avoid spoilers. But to keep it short, if you really sit down and think about it, the film essentially happens by chance. Which is a massive oversight that some might overlook while others will not. It does share a lot of story beats with the original, which is nice, since it gives us something familiar, but it’s also unfortunate, as the film never moves past the original’s shadow.

Of course, being a legacy sequel, “Gladiator II” borrows some very notable scenes and cues from the original. These instances range from callbacks to footage from the original 2000 film. This portion is definitely a mixed bag; some would love it for the nostalgia, others would hate it as it is often done rather jarringly. However, this is a subjective matter, which we will leave you to decide for yourselves. However, this does cement the fact that you need to watch the original for maximum enjoyment.

If we were to nitpick, we would flag the film’s ending. After an epic final act, we are treated to a sort of fanservice-y ending, which kills the mood. And it feels like Ridley Scott didn’t know how to end the film, which is essentially the final nail in the coffin for this film never surpassing the original. This is incredibly unfortunate, as we genuinely thought that we’d get a much more deserving ending that would have capped off a 24-year-old story.

Overall, “Gladiator II” is an exceptionally gripping film from start to finish, packed with a lot of intense scenes that makes it memorable. It properly paces itself when it comes to those intense and grandiose moments, alongside those quieter and more conniving scenes. However, the film has some major issues when it comes to its script; we have to suspend our disbelief quite frequently throughout the film. It takes a multitude of liberties with the original history, so don’t take what you see as fact. Despite it all, it is still an exceptionally fun film to watch if you’re looking for a good historical epic or simply wanting to see how it all ends.

“Gladiator II” will be in theatres 14th November.