My Review of Gladiator II

"Violence is the universal language"

Still from Gladiator II (2024), dir. Ridley Scott

NOTE: Some spoilers ahead!

I think historical fiction can be done really well and Ridley Scott’s Gladiator (2000) is one of my favorite films in this genre, so when I heard that a sequel was announced I was quite excited. Did I expect anything to surpass the brilliance of the original? Definitely not. However, I was curious to see how the sequel would play out especially after I heard that it would follow the story of Lucilla’s son, Lucius (who, as the new film confirmed, was secretly fathered by Maximus!). With an open mind and to pay my respects to the genre if nothing else, I went to the nearest theater to check it out.

Paul Mescal stars as Lucius Verus Aurelius, the film’s protagonist who we had previously met when he was a young prince in Gladiator. Gladiator II establishes that Lucilla had sent away the young Lucius to the countryside for his safety shortly after the events at the end of the first film. For reasons that the sequel never explains clearly, the village that Lucius hid in was attacked, and Lucius was taken as a captive. The sequel opens with Lucius as an adult, now living in Numidia (North Africa) under the name ‘Hanno.’ He also has a wife named Arishat, who, like him, is a warrior in the Numidian army. Without wasting much time, the film jumps into action and a battle commences between the Roman army, under General Acacius (Pedro Pascal), and Numidia. Rome is successful in capturing Numidia, torches vast parts of the main city, and takes many people as prisoners and slaves, including Hanno. Arishat dies in the battle, and becomes Hanno’s motive for seeking vengeance against the corruption of Rome (he does not fully remember his own Roman childhood yet). One might expect a modern sequel of Gladiator to be full of unhistorical female warriors and other ‘revisionist’ additions, but surprisingly, Arishat is the only major example of this and given that she dies so early on in the film, she functions as the ‘dead wife’ trope more than anything else (fitting, since Maximus in the first Gladiator also lost his wife and kid at the hands of imperial Roman corruption).

Although there is some lip-service to it, diversity virtue-signaling is not the biggest issue with the sequel and does not affect the plot at all. Rather, the major issue with the film, in my opinion, is the structure of the plot itself. In an attempt to both explore Lucius’ arc as the rightful heir to the imperial throne and also to explore the intricacies of Patrician Roman politics, Gladiator II cannot decide what it wants its story to be. In the film, Lucius/Hanno, enslaved by the Roman army, later becomes one of the gladiators under the control of Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a wealthy freedman who now owns a stable of gladiators and has gained significant influence in the city through financial blackmailing and other means. The twin emperors Geta and Carcalla (early 200s AD) are mostly tangential to this fictional plot, since the film re-imagines Macrinus as having all the real power in the city. The only other person with significant influence behind-the-scenes in Rome is Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), the daughter of Marcus Aurelius from the first film, and the mother of Lucius (as she later reveals to him during a visit to the gladiator barracks). Despite Lucius’ initial disbelief and resentment toward his mother, he realizes that she had good reason for sending him away and begins to take pride in his birthright and especially in the fact that his father, Maximus, died defending Roman republican ideals against the corruption of Emperor Commodus (first film). While Lucius makes his own plans to save Rome and his mother, Macrinus is manipulating the twin emperors and ultimately becomes second consul and takes full command of the senate and the Praetorian Guard after he ‘helps’ Carcalla kill Geta. If all this sounds confusing, you would not be the only one. I assumed that the film would be a straightforward plot about Lucius’ return to Rome, his reunion with Lucilla, his reclaiming of the imperial throne, and ultimately his restoration of Rome back to a republic (as Marcus Aurelius wanted and as Maximus attempted in the first film). However, I was left a little puzzled that the film decided to make Macrinus a major character with his own schemes going on, but did not reveal his role as the real villain until almost the end of the film. Macrinus’ character development as the villain needed more time and clarity. Theoretically, these two stories could’ve worked together, but the film does not explain Macrinus’ motives and only quickly addresses the big emotional ‘reveal’ of Lucius’ parentage before turning it into one of many intersecting plot devices. I would argue that neither character is developed as fully as they could’ve been if Scott had stuck to one main storyline, and/or established Macrinus as villain and his motives earlier on.

Moreover, the final showdown between the forces of Macrinus and the combined freed-gladiator/Roman army forces of Lucius ends rather abruptly after Lucius defeats Macrinus in single combat. The rightful heir to Rome is victorious, so at least, if nothing else, the film does uphold a traditional sense of heroism and celebrates (exceptional) virtue and noble heritage over the whims of mobs and power-hungry connivers. Yet, this conclusion does not feel as emotionally powerful or ‘well-earned’ as it could have been—it is even a little anticlimactic. To underscore what I said, the problem is not the themes in the film, but the poor structuring and weak parallel editing of a convoluted plot which possibly could’ve been done well. The film also relies far too much on homages to the original film for approval from its audience, such as one-too-many repetitions of Maximus’ famous quotes that Lucius ‘remembers’ hearing. I would say that the one way in which Maximus is integrated well into the new film, is when Lucius wears his father’s twin-horses breastplate and carries his sword—a sweet moment depicting a son physically embodying the spirit of his father.

Despite the plot issues, the film has good performances by Paul Mescal as Lucius/Hanno, Connie Nielsen as Lucilla, and Joseph Quinn as Emperor Geta. Nielsen retains the dignified allure and mystery that made the character of Lucilla so compelling to watch in the first film, and Mescal demonstrates more of his emotive range as the tormented yet virtuous son and heir. (It also helps that he looks good as a gladiator!) Quinn delivers a surprising standout performance in his minor role as Emperor Geta, capturing some of that decadent and creepy derangement we saw from Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus in the first Gladiator. The disappointments, however, were Denzel Washington as Macrinus and Pedro Pascal as General Acacius. Pascal had all the acting potential, but his character Acacius (the new husband of Lucilla) ultimately becomes a throw-away character who is arrested for plotting against the emperors and dies to protect Lucius after being forced to confront him in the arena early on in the film. Washington, on the other hand, seemed half-hearted in his role as Macrinus who is supposed to be the main villain of the film. Usually a fabulous actor, it was strange to see Washington treat the role of Macrinus like a character in a high school theater production... Whether this was the fault of Washington himself, or the imperfect script, it is hard to say, but even the most interesting lines that his character said felt either flatly delivered or occasionally over-the-top.

On a positive note, the single best thing in Gladiator II is the cinematography by John Mathieson. This, combined with decent CGI visuals and detailed set-design, makes the film worth watching on the big screen. There are some truly great shots in the film, including stunning long shots of the Roman landscape and a bird’s-eye shot when the armies of Macrinus and Lucius first encounter each other. The first battle scene in Numidia is also executed well and sets the tone for the rest of the film’s action. A major highlight of the film is the recreation of a ‘naval battle’ gladiator fight in the Colosseum—it is clear that the film’s historical consultants spent some time researching how the Romans did these in their arenas. The cinematography is at its strongest in the naval battle sequence, playing with camera angles, forced perspectives, underwater shots, and close-ups of all the gore. There is a jolting close-up of the wood breaking as two ships crash into each other, and great low-angle shots from the waterline as defeated gladiators fall into the ‘ocean’ to hungry sharks. In general, the best moments in the film are its fight and battle sequences, where the actors and cinematographers end up working in perfect sync to deliver hyper-real and exciting action. I would not be surprised if the cinematography is nominated for various awards! If one considers this film as part of the classic tradition of ‘sword-and-sandal epics,’ it works quite well and is an enjoyable watch despite its plot issues. Roman material history buffs will also appreciate the attention to detail in the reimagined cityscape, costumes, hairstyles, and military equipment—as long as they watch this film as fun historical fiction and not as a narrative about one particular time-period in Roman history.

All in all, Gladiator II is not a bad film and it is certainly not biased toward one ‘agenda’ or another (except an ahistorical republican ideal, like the first film). The problems with the film were more structural and editorial than anything else, and its pacing needed serious reconfiguring. With key individual performances, powerful cinematography, and quality visuals, the film is worth the watch in theaters but only if you go into it expecting a sword-and-sandal flick. That being said, the first Gladiator had not only all the positives of this film but also a clear and compelling plot, a timeless ‘re-watchability,’ and memorable quotes still famous today. As far as sequels go, Gladiator II does not come even close to the greatness of its predecessor, although admittedly, the bar was high. Unlike the first film which emotionally moved audiences with the narrative of Maximus’ redemption, the second film is unclear and choppy with its narrative(s) and leaves the audience with many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the plot of Gladiator II works best as a vessel for the film’s artistic fight and battle scenes rather than as an engaging story. Macrinus says to Lucius/Hanno at one point in the film: “Violence is the universal language.” I would posit that this single line is the film meta-textually acknowledging its own audience reception. Ironically, film-goers leave the theater feeling not so different from the actual attendees of ancient gladiatorial games—we are all in it for the drama and action, popcorn et circenses.

---