Gladiator 2: overshadowed by a giant

Let me start off by getting one thing straight. There are no spoilers in this review. I won’t be mentioning anything that hasn’t already been revealed in trailers.

«Go,» Lucilla breathes to the fallen gladiator Maximus. «Go to them.»

Maximus, once commander of the armies of the north, general of the Felix legions, loyal servant to the true emperor Marcus Aurelius, father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, closes his eyes for the last time. His body’s lying in the bloodstained sands of Rome’s largest temple, the Colosseum. But his soul has found its way back to his family in the great beyond. Hans Zimmer’s Now We Are Free plays in the background.

Cinema history.

Almost 25 years later, I’m wondering if I’d truly been naive enough to think that director Ridley Scott could repeat his original stroke of genius. «No,» I say to myself, «but I’d hoped so.» Let’s rewind for a sec. In 2000, historical films were considered a dead genre. The golden age of Ben Hur, Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia from the 1960s was long gone. Anyone who went down the men-in skirts-and-sandals route was considered nuts.

Ridley Scott was one of these crazy people. And eventually, he’d be vindicated. His Gladiator breathed new life into the historical genre and won five Oscars, including Best Picture. It also inspired a string of new films featuring said men in sandals. Take Troy or Alexander, for example. Scott gave the genre another go a few years later with Kingdom of Heaven. Though he’s tried it numerous times in the years since, he’s never quite managed to build on the resounding, genre-defining success of Gladiator.

And Gladiator 2 is no exception.

What is Gladiator 2 about?

Strength and honour. Lucius (Paul Mescal) has lived by this credo ever since his mother Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) sent him away from Rome. The political intrigues and machinations of those who’d never accept the future child emperor as heir to the throne were too dangerous. But to think that Lucius would find peace in his escape was foolish.

Rome, constantly driven by its insatiable need for expansion, remains true to itself – even more than 20 years later. When General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) conquers a Numidian coastal town, Lucius’s wife is killed in battle. This is how far his fate has pursued him. Lucius, who then ends up as an unknown slave, is consumed from that point onwards by a single thought: getting revenge on General Acacius.

Gladiator trainer Macrinus (Denzel Washington) is supposed to deliver this. But Macrinus has his own ambitious plans. Not only for himself and his gladiators, but also for Rome. The Eternal City’s suffering under the rule of its eccentric, exploitative twin emperors. Only General Acacius, of all people, seems to enjoy the trust of the people to overthrow the emperors and fulfil the «dream of Rome». Unless Macrinus beats him to it… But at what cost?

The sequel clichés prove true

Yeah, yeah, we all know the script. The clichés people repeat in the run-up to sequels.

«The story told in the first movie was finished!»

«Man, Hollywood’s really run out of ideas, hasn’t it?»

«What’s the point in having a sequel if there’s nothing new to say?»

I’ve heard it all before. And tried to keep it as far out of my head as possible while watching the film. I want to give you an unbiased opinion. One that goes beyond these platitudes. And yet, Gladiator 2 is the cinematic epitome of all these clichés. It’s an unnecessary sequel that adds nothing to the original masterpiece. It doesn’t improve it, nor does it even give it more depth. Because – yep, you guessed it – the story was already finished with the first film.

To make matters worse, Gladiator 2 has simply copied the original instead of telling a new story. It’s actually shameless. Yet again, we have a main character, once a loyal soul of Rome, who’s had «everything taken away from him» by the same Rome, causing him to feel betrayed and abandoned. And yet again, there’s an appetite for revenge. The opportunity for said vengeance arrives at the Colosseum, when our protagonist obeys the advice of the mentor who bought him out of captivity and into slavery: to become a gladiator.

Been there, done that.

This achievement – a mighty feat in Rome – can only be achieved if you slaughter your way through a few crazy, gory games and win the favour of the audience. That’s just how it is. And of course, the emperors are utterly convinced of their own greatness. Like before, their autocratic, tyrannical rule drives the Roman Senate to political intrigues in order to seize power. Supposedly for the good of the people and to fulfil the dream of Rome.

As I said: Hollywood’s really run out of ideas, hasn’t it?

Admittedly, the story isn’t entirely the same as Gladiator 1. Denzel Washington in particular gets to make his performance a little bit interesting as Macrinus. Again and again, he elegantly alternates between casual restraint and impulsive outbursts. Every pose, every movement, every gesture – everything about him seems deliberate, considered and laden with gravitas. While his fellow actors simply shout out their monologues, Washington wrestles with every line, savouring each word as if trying to taste the hidden melody and the nuances within it. It’s a magnificent performance.

Ridley Scott described Macrinus in the run-up to the film’s release as a cunning gangster. One who fought his way from the very bottom to the very top and became one of the wealthiest Romans. Just like Proximo from Gladiator. The difference between Macrinus and Proximo, however, lies in what their characters are capable of doing in order to achieve their goals.

Denzel Washington’s Training Day springs to mind.

Ok, there are a couple of different variations after all. Even Hollywood isn’t that brazen. Or at least not David Scarpa, who also wrote the screenplay for the fairly unsatisfying Ridley Scott film Napoleon.

The fact that an otherwise so highly esteemed, masterful director like Scott was nevertheless satisfied with such a clumsy, uninspired copy of the first movie is nothing but disappointing. It also makes me doubt his artistic judgment – especially after Napoleon. Neither superficial deviations from the original nor the film’s modernised look can disguise the dearth of ideas or the attempt to rely on tired nostalgia. What was that cliché again?

What’s the point in having a sequel if there’s nothing new to...?

Visual brilliance can’t conceal the content’s weaknesses

At least Scott remains true to one thing: visuals. Yes, Gladiator 2 looks fantastic. Scott’s opulent signature style when it comes to historical films is still beyond reproach. No surprises there, given he’s already lavished us with visual treasures such as Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus and, in my opinion, the unjustly underrated The Last Duel.

Gladiator 2 is no different in this respect. The Roman Forum radiates an unprecedented splendour, every frame a breathtaking painting of ancient Rome. And when mighty armies march over Italy’s hills or galleys sail for the coasts of North Africa, driven by thunderous drumbeats, you go from watching the film to experiencing it. The particularly impressive thing is how tangible Scott’s images appear – far removed from any artificial digital aesthetics. Oh, and wait until you see the costumes!

In that regard, Scott remains an unsurpassed master of his craft. No one can take that away from him.

I can forgive Scott for taking the Colosseum action a bit too far on occasion. At one point, a man rides a rhinoceros as if it were a horse – saddle and all. Did that kind of thing really happen? Either way, it looks weird. Another example is when the Colosseum is flooded to allow gladiators and soldiers to clash in galleys, while hungry sharks lurk in the water below. The flooding of the arena seems reasonably accurate in historical terms. But when it’s staged in the movie, I can’t help wondering where on Earth the sharks came from.

I’m happy to overlook trivial stuff like this if the rest of a film’s done right. But you know what I said earlier…

When characters suddenly abandon their once firmly established motivations and make a 180-degree turn for no real reason, I’m out. Why, Mr Scott? Because the plot needed it?! That’s a dumb explanation. And don’t get me started on that eternal, hackneyed cliché: the lone hero stirring up an army with his whispery voice. Even the last legionnaire, three hundred metres away, hears every word as clearly as if he had a built-in, directional microphone. Why, in the name of all that is holy, has a veteran director fallen prey to such a ploy?

But Gladiator 2 hits rock bottom in the tacky stakes when composer Harry Gregson Williams attempts his best Hans Zimmer impression. Don’t get me wrong – Williams is a fantastic composer. His soundtracks for Kingdom of Heaven and Chronicles of Narnia are still regular hits on my playlist. The fact that Williams studied under Hans Zimmer (he assisted Zimmer on films such as The Rock, Crimson Tide and The Prince of Egypt) is clearly audible in many of his works.

In Gladiator 2, on the other hand, none of the music is striking. Not a single note. Nada. It all sounds generic, stuff we’ve heard a million times before. Except, of course, when Williams brings in a well-known theme from Hans Zimmer’s Gladiator soundtrack. Then, and only then, do I get that warm, cosy, nostalgic feeling spreading through the pit of my stomach. Transported back to my youth, I almost feel like shedding a tear. It’s a goosebumps moment. Then, it dawns on me that I’m not moved so much by what’s happening on screen.

Rather, it’s the fleeting memory of something great that still looks insanely good when copied well. Acted well and soundtracked well too. But in the end, that’s all it is: a copy.

Which brings us back to our good, old Hollywood clichés.