'Gladiator II' Fails to Entertain
Strength and honor meet boredom and frustration. Gladiator II is a sequel that is unnecessary and more of a cash grab than a meaningful story. Gladiator (2000) was a tale about a good man who never lost sight of his dignity no matter how undignified the actions others forced him to do. At the end of the film, Maximus' decency defeats the corrupt Emperor. The protagonist in this film, Lucius (Paul Mescal), is morally a carbon copy of Maximus. The only exception is that he was never once a great general for the Roman army. Lucious is a man born into slavery who thrives for a free Rome. I only know this because Lucius exclaims it in the film. There's nothing that makes Lucius interesting, nor is there anything that drew me to the characters in this sequel. Everyone is underwritten, serving a purpose to move a boring plot forward.
From the start, I knew things were wrong. The movie has opening credits. Something the first film didn't have. Even worse, the credits featured a Waking Life-style animation featuring events from the first film reminding you this one might not have much going for it. All the while, the new film has a score played by Harry Gregson-Williams who is no Hans Zimmer. To say Han Zimmer is a better composer than Harry Gregson-Williams would be an understatement. HGW's scores in movies are usually generic. Some of his best work is done for the Metal Gear Solid video games, and those game scores are mostly done on a computer, not an orchestra. There's an orchestra here but I can't recall a single memorable note within the film.
Hans Zimmer's score holds a dear place in my heart. It's something I would use to play when working out with my trainer as a kid. The only time this other guy's score works is when it repeats Zimmer's themes. If Zimmer wasn't available, Ridley Scott should have looked arduously for the correct composer. If he couldn't find one, then don't make the film. When the flick wraps its opening credits, it starts with a scroll informing the audience that this film takes place 16 years after the first one, although it's been 24 since the first film. Yes, let that old age sync in. The Roman Empire is ruled under two bratty twins, Emperor Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) and Emperor Geta (Joseph Quinn). When the film finally starts after the long opening credit sequence, we cut to Lucious, who's gearing up for battle. I think. I can't remember since the movie's plot was so dull.
The film tries hard to keep us entertained but just feels like it's talking down to the audience. Gladiator II has more Colosseum fights than I can recount as an effort to keep audiences awake. One sequence I almost forgot about if I didn't take my notes during the film involves the Colosseum being flooded with water so the opponents could knock each other's full-sized boats into one another. I'm no historian by any stretch of the imagination, but did that really happen? It comes across as ridiculous, especially when the CGI makes everything look like a video game.
At one point in the film, multiple large-sized animals enter the ring in an attempt to dwarf the first film's tiger sequence. Ridley Scott has forgotten what made that scene work in the first place. In Gladiator, nothing was placed out of the sense of believability. The tiger scene worked not only because we believed it but also because it was cheap and morally out of line. It added a layer of disdain for its Emperor, played masterfully by Joaquin Phoenix. Here there are more animals because it's bigger. I'm sorry, but bigger doesn't mean better. Ironically, the film doesn't feel bigger than the original since it's narrativly a mess. It feels like Troy. Remember that film? Who would? The movie was massive in scale but duller than a rusty sword, making its large scale forgettable.
I remember the fights in Gladiator because they served the plot. The opening fight in Germany thrust the audience into the action, giving us enough context as to who Maximus (Russel Crowe) was. Every one of his troops proclaims "strength and honor" as he passes by them. When one forgets to recognize his general, Maximus gives him a friendly tap on his armor to remind him. What do we know about the Roman General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) in this film? We know he's a conqueror. We also know that he has a shred of honor due to an event placed in the plot that feels forced. It's a way to make both films connect to the only living character returning to this film.
In this case, it's Connie Neilson playing Lucilla. Nielson is a good actress, but she didn't bring the presence her co-stars in the first film did. That's not her fault, as she's not given much characterization there. Nor does she have much more of it in this film. She's played as a decent person trapped in an indecent time but not as anything more.
Everyone gives a fine performance, but there's no real writing in their characters. It's a waste of good actors. Denzel Washington is particularly disappointing. Denzel is an incredible performer who feels out of place. Everyone in the film has a quasi-British accent because we know everyone in the Roman Empire spoke perfect English. But Denzel sounds too American, taking you out of the atmosphere and reminding you that it is, indeed, just a film with actors, sets, CGI, and extras.
The fictionality in the camera's digital sensors does the movie no favors in reminding you that everything is fake. With movies shot digitally, sometimes the technology itself shows its limitations. One image in particular is filmed at presumably 60 frames per second, where the digital wave lines were going wild. It's sort of like that wabbly effect you see in your phone when it shakes during a video. In this case, it was Paul Mescal, whose arms were warping in the shot. On film, you wouldn't have this problem. Perhaps shooting on celluloid would work better for Ancient Rome.
I'm already deep into this review and haven't gotten into the plot. Well, the story is similar to the first film but with bad writing. Our protagonist's loved one is killed, so he seeks vengeance. In this case, it's Lucious wants vengence on General Marcus Acacius, who puts an arrow in his wife. Ridley Scott is demeaning his audience by saying, "You see, it's different in this film, which is about a General who's bad instead of good." Yes, it's different, yet Ridley can't stop referencing the last film in this film.
He also makes Gladiator II two times bloodier than the first film, with one shot looking like it was ripped from an early Sam Rami film. Why? Because he knows the fans think gore is "cool." It wasn't the gore we liked Ridley. It was how Maximus was capable of performing terrible violence yet held back unless he was forced to take action, hence why the beheading scene worked. In Gladiator II, we get two decapitations! Cool huh? No.
Missing the first film's simple narrative structure and discernable characters, Gladiator II is a shameless paycheck from a filmmaker who holds none of his franchises sacred. He tampered with Alien, won creatively big thanks to Denis Villeneuve directing Blade Runner 2049 instead of him, and has now released one of the most disappointing sequels I've seen in years. I guess that's some sort of accomplishment.
