Gladiator 2 Review: Denzel Washington Is The Best Part Of Ridley Scott's Sequel
In 2000, director Ridley Scott asked us all, "How much do you think about the Roman Empire?" and unleashed "Gladiator," an action-packed swords-and-sandals epic that became the second highest grossing movie of the year and took home Oscars for Best Picture and Best Actor. The Best Actor was Russell Crowe, who played Maximus, a Roman general sworn to revenge after his wife and son are killed and he's sold into slavery. When a movie is as big as "Gladiator," studio executives start seeing dollar signs in their eyes and dreaming up sequels. There was one problem, though: "Gladiator" ended with Maximus dying after defeating the evil Emperor Commodus (a sneering Joaquin Phoenix). No matter: a sequel was demanded, and for decades now, Scott has been trying to pull one off. At one point, goth rocker and sometimes screenwriter Nick Cave was commissioned to pen the script, and he cooked up a wild and crazy tale of the supernatural ; one that raised Maximus from the dead and ended with him inexplicably living in the present day. It's a crackling good screenplay, and you can find it online — but sadly, it was seemingly too far-out to get made.
Now, 24 years after "Gladiator," Scott has made "Gladiator II," a film that plays out almost like a beat for beat remake of the original movie ... until it doesn't. I need to tread carefully here, because I don't want to dip into spoiler territory. But it almost feels like Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa (who also wrote the Scott films "All the Money in the World" and "Napoleon" ) are performing a little bait-and-switch. They play the hits, repeating the same basic plotline from the original movie. And then they suddenly say, "Okay, now that you're comfortable, it's time for something different."
This ends up being something of a problem, because while the overly familiar section of the film is entertaining enough, the third act change-up is much more interesting. As a result, I found myself wishing that this is what the entire film had been about. Scott and Scarpa should've jettisoned the first two acts of the film and made the final act the main focus. Still, "Gladiator II" is sturdy, solid, enjoyable blockbuster filmmaking; another testament to the fact that even at 86 years old, Ridley Scott is still one of the best of the best, a skilled entertainer who knows how to deliver the goods.
Set 16 years after the events of "Gladiator," "Gladiator II" unfolds by sticking almost religiously to the formula of the first film: a man loses someone he loves, gets sold into slavery, thirsts for revenge against Rome, and becomes a popular gladiator. The man is Lucius, a character who appeared as a child in the first film, played by Spencer Treat Clark. Here he's played by Paul Mescal, who is watchable enough in the role, even though the character turns out to be kind of a dud. Lucius' true identity is treated as something of a secret for the first half of the film, but I don't consider it a spoiler to reveal here since every piece of marketing, including trailers , have already given this away. Lucius is of royal blood, but when he was a child, his mother Lucilla (Connie Nielsen, returning from the first film) sent him away to keep him safe. Lucius then built a brand new life for himself and even got married, but during a thrilling opening battle sequence, Lucius looks on in horror as his warrior wife is killed at the order of Roman General Acacius (Pedro Pascal). Taken prisoner, Lucius plots revenge against Acacius.
But Acacius isn't the big villain Lucius imagines him to be. For one thing, this general is tired of Rome's bloody wars. And he despises Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger), a pair of twin twinks who rule Rome as co-emperors. The twin emperors have run the empire into the ground, and Acacius dreams of a better world for Rome and all its people. Lucius, meanwhile, has been forced to become a gladiator after being purchased by Macrinus, a gladiator promoter played to the hilt by Denzel Washington . It would be incorrect to say we undervalue Denzel Washington — he's a consummate box office draw, multiple Oscar winner, and one of our best living actors. And yet, time and time again, Washington will show up and deliver a performance that knocks me on my ass, as if I somehow forgot how damn good he is. It's always a treat to watch him work, and he's clearly having the time of his life in "Gladiator II." This is both a blessing and a curse: Washington is so enjoyable that the movie sags whenever he's not on screen. I like Paul Mescal, and he's perfectly fine here — but Lucius is somehow the least-interesting character in a movie built around him.
At first, Washington's Macrinus seems like little more than a supporting player; a rebooted version of the helpful mentor played by the late Oliver Reed in the first movie. But Macrinus dreams of greater things. He's always plotting, always scheming, and little by little, his true motivations come to the forefront. Again, I'm treading carefully to avoid spoilers, but this is the material that proves to be the most compelling part of "Gladiator II." Forget Lucius — give me more of Macrinus, damn it! Washington never goes over the top here, and there's such fun to be had from his performance; he simply commands every scene he has, slyly smiling with a wicked twinkle in his eye. It's genuinely thrilling to see him up on the screen.
While "Gladiator II" is overloaded with plot (perhaps a little too much, in all honesty), the selling point will likely be the big, brutal gladiator battles. While the action here isn't quite as pulse-quickening as what was on display in the first film, Scott tries to go bigger and crazier with each subsequent action scene. Lucius not only has to contend with fighting other gladiators, he also must frequently deal with a menagerie of blood-thirsty animals. He battles baboons and a rhinoceros, and in one of the highlights of the film, the Colosseum is flooded to stage a mock-naval battle, complete with sharks darting around in the water. Is it silly? A little — but it's based on fact: the Romans really did flood the Colosseum once (although the sharks seem to be a fabrication on the film's part).
Of course, historical accuracy is unimportant to Scott and his team. Sure, some of the figures here are based on real people (Rome really was ruled by twin emperors at one point , for instance), but Scott has said time and time again that when he's making a historical film he's not hung-up on the "real" details. And why should he be? Scott is not a filmmaker trying to give us a history lesson. He's a pulpy entertainer. The first "Gladiator" may have took home multiple Oscars, but in truth, it was never much of a prestige picture. It was a blood-soaked actioner that just happened to resonate with a wide array of viewers. Will "Gladiator II" go to Oscar glory? That's not my beat, and I find awards season prognostication boring, but it's hard to believe this sequel will have the same impact — although I could easily see Washington earning up nods for his scene-stealing performance.
Alongside Mescal and Washington, the cast performs their duties admirably. Pascal's role is somewhat smaller than you might expect, but he finds a quiet dignity in the character of a weary general. Nielsen is stoic as the frequently weeping Lucilla. And Quinn and Hechinger are consistently entertaining as the ghoulish emperors (although Hechinger gets to have a little more fun, as his character is the more deranged of the pair; he even gets a tiny monkey sidekick). Alexander Karim also deseves praise for his small-but-memorable role as a doctor who patches up Mescal's Lucius whenever he gets injured.
Along with the performances, virtually everything else in "Gladiator II" is slick and serviceable: the lavish production design is on point, John Mathieson's cinematography, which makes great use of natural light, is appealing and painterly, the VFX are convincing, and Harry Gregson-Williams' score does a fair imitation of Hans Zimmer's work from the first flick. Still, I can't shake the feeling that the sequel is too enamored with recreating events from the previous movie. It's unfair to judge a film on what it could be rather than what it ultimately is, but "Gladiator II" would've been something truly special had it focused more on its third act revelations.
No matter: "Gladiator II" gets the job done. It doesn't reinvent the wheel, and it doesn't have to. I don't for one second think Scott is setting out here trying to make an absolute masterpiece; he's content to simply make a damn entertaining action pic with an pulpy old school sensibility. Third act machinations aside, "Gladiator II" ends up being rather simple in its construction, and perhaps that's ultimately its greatest strength. Scott is taking us away from the grind of the real world and dropping us into a flashy, escapist Hollywood blockbuster sequel for a few hours, serving us up a delightful Denzel Washington performance as a bonus. Ridley Scott may be pushing 90, but like Roman emperors offering up bread and circuses, he still knows how to entertain the masses with a fun, bloody distraction.
"Gladiator II" opens in theaters on November 22, 2024.
