24 years after the release of the first film, Ridley Scott has returned to Ancient Roman society to direct an award-worthy sequel to Gladiator.
The film follows Lucius (Paul Mescal) who is taken to Rome after the Romans seize his homeland, Numidia. Due to his status as a soldier, he shows great strength and promise in combat which attracts the attention of Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a man known for his honour in Rome. Under the guidance of Macrinus, Lucius works his way through the ranks, to fight as a Gladiator at the Colosseum, fuelled by his rage and desire to get revenge for the people close to him that died in Numidia.
Gladiator II is a very compelling storyline, driven mainly through the emotions of Lucius, offering moments of humour amongst the violence and grief, a career-defining performance for Mescal. It is an incredibly physical role played to perfection. Washington’s performance is also perfectly complex, balancing greed and masterful manipulation with his painful past. It is no wonder why he is regarded as one of the Hollywood greats as every moment he’s on screen is truly captivating.
It is a story of tyranny and greed, where innocent people are sacrificed in the name of glory. Pedro Pascal plays the decorated General Acacius who wishes to restore Rome to its former state, free from the tyrant emperors, Caracalla and Geta. Acacius is married to Connie Nielsen’s Lucilla, who fans of the first film will remember as the daughter of Marcus Aurelius. Their joint effort to restore the dream of Rome that Marcus Aurelius had puts their lives on the line, and is a deeply emotional tale of justice and love.
Too Much Hollywood for Ancient Rome.
My qualms with the film mainly lie in the “Hollywoodification” of Ridley Scott’s direction. In the first Gladiator, amongst the chaos, Scott gave light to the emotions and stories of each character and their relationships with the others on screen. Part of the reason Maximus is such an iconic character is that he is willing to sacrifice his own life in the name of justice, even if it means leaving the people he loves behind. His death was touching, as we were able to sympathise with him and the people who loved him because a core focus of the film was his feelings, not just the aspects of violence and battle.
Comparatively, these moments of introspection are sparse in the sequel. The action is constant, and the dramatism that the first film had is lost. The film also follows the classic Hollywood trope of action films: the hero prevails, and the villains are punished. This use of bllack-and-white character archetypes limits the opportunity for character development. There is not much dimension to a lot of the characters or, if there is opportunity for it, it is cut short by death or fighting.
Perhaps well-known for his world-building and ability to create a visual spectacle in his films, Gladiator II is undeniably a beautiful film to watch. However, it does seem that close-ups and two shots are favoured over wide shots, which usually allow the display of Scott’s visual spectacle. This is again one of the things that adds to the character-driven, Hollywood aspects of the film; it is more what is said through dialogue or action than the actual ‘image’ that we see on screen.
Redefining Gladiator.
It is said a lot that no sequel can ever be better than the original and, unfortunately, I think this is the case for Gladiator II. However, I do find that it is brilliant in its own right. There are moments in the film which, trying not to spoil key plot points, had me grinning with excitement. The battle scenes, whilst very frequent, are expertly choreographed and had me on the edge of my seat. It is a gloriously gruesome film that could only have been directed by a great such as Scott. Perhaps it is not as good as the original, but it is by no means a bad attempt at capturing the essence of the first film.
Feature Image credit: Paramount Pictures
