**This review contains spoilers**

Gladiator II is the long-awaited follow-up to 2000’s Gladiator which won the Oscar for Best Picture. I don’t have much of a relationship to the original Gladiator film, but I know it’s hugely important to many people. Because of that, I felt like the sequel would be a big cultural touchstone so I had to check it out. I won’t bury the lede here. While intending to be a sequel to Gladiator, Gladiator II  is essentially just a remake. It hits the same major plot points and emotional beats but to a less exciting degree because, well, we saw it already the first time. I don’t think this was a bad movie, but they had an opportunity to make something interesting and, instead, made something predictable.

Gladiator II has been in the works for many years. There were various scripts commissioned, including one from Nick Cave that resurrected Russell Crowe’s Maximus Decimus Meridius as a time-traveling, immortal warrior who fought on behalf of the Roman gods. The version they landed on picks up 16 years after the events of the first film. Lucius Verus II (Paul Mescal), the grandson of Rome’s former emperor Marcus Aurelius and son of Lucilla and Maximus, returns to Rome after being forced into slavery to battle as a gladiator. He wants revenge on General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) who killed his wife in battle. Gladiator owner/trainer, Macrinus (Denzel Washington), promises Lucius he will have his revenge once he proves himself in the arena in front of twin emperors, Caracalla and Geta (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger). Seems simple enough but there’s a lot to unpack here. The story follows the template of the first film pretty much beat for beat. Both films have:

• An opening battle scene that involves the Roman Empire conquering a new land
• A male protagonist who loses his wife and is then sold into slavery and forced to compete as a gladiator in Rome. He is driven by seeking revenge for her death and constantly has flashes to images of her in the afterlife. (I personally don’t love that we’re still telling stories where a woman has to die in order to inspire a man. Also, while we’re on the topic, in Gladiator II, Lucius’ wife and mother both die the exact same way. Was that intentional or just lazy writing? Inquiring minds would like to know.)
• Evil emperors who want power, love, and attention
• A secret plot to overthrow the corrupt monarchy and institute a republic. This plot is eventually foiled and also involves a large army waiting outside the walls of the city. (An issue that I have with the first film that continues in the second is how much conversation there is about what Rome means and what it should be. Both movies could cut down on that.)
• A final, one-on-one duel between the main protagonist and antagonist while a large crowd watches

In addition to the story being a rough copy, the movie also draws many straight lines to the first film. I really don’t think you’d be able to fully enjoy or understand this movie without having recently watched Gladiator. Marcus Aurelius and Maximus are mentioned often without ever appearing in the film (both characters are dead so it wouldn’t exactly make sense to see them). Lucilla is a returning character. Lucius is the son of Maximus and Lucilla, something that is possibly hinted at in the original if you choose to read it that way but is confirmed as true in this film. And while this movie introduces many new and potentially intriguing characters, it seems like all anyone wants to talk about is the legacy of Maximus and the rule of Marcus Aurelius. I started expecting every single character to have a direct connection to someone from the first film. Just another way this sequel lives in the past of the franchise without attempting to move it forward.

The most interesting part of Gladiator II for both the fresh characterization and the performance behind it is Denzel Washington as Macrinus. While there is a comparison character in the original film (Oliver Reed’s Proximo), Macrinus is a revitalized take on something we think we’re familiar with. He starts as potentially an ally for Lucius before slowly revealing his true colors as a former slave who secretly plots to gain wealth and power and control Rome and is willing to do anything on his climb to the top. Macrinus is fun and sinister and, for most of the movie, we are pretty unclear on his motives and intentions. It’s compelling to see him plot in this Machiavellian way behind the scenes and try to figure out where it is all going. Especially in a film that was otherwise so predictable, this character provided some spark. And Denzel gives Macrinus, as well as the whole film, an injection of life. He’s endlessly charismatic, decked out in robes and jewels, having the time of his life. The decadent wardrobe is especially notable because of Macrinus’ ascent from his early life as a slave to his current position, as well as the emphasis the movie puts on poverty and wealth. We see many shots of impoverished people, offset with shots of excessive opulence. Macrinus is evil and ambitious but Denzel plays him so laidback and with a smile on his face. It seems to be a theme in entertainment these days that the villain is more entertaining than the protagonist. What does that say about the world we’re living in? I’m not sure I want to go there… 

What about the other characters? Paul Mescal is fine as Lucius but just doesn’t have the same stoic magnetism that Russell Crowe brought to Maximus. Maybe it’s his performance or maybe it’s the screenplay that doesn’t give him much to do other than brood and fight. I did think it was cool, though, when he got to wear Maximus’ armor. Similarly, Pedro Pascal is a big name these days and was billed as one of the stars of this movie. I’m not sure if his scenes were cut or what happened but he’s also given virtually nothing to do in this film. For an actor of his current prestige and also talents, I would have liked to see a lot more from him. Connie Nielsen as Lucilla does have a considerable amount to do in the movie but, unfortunately, the majority of it is exactly the same thing she did in the first movie. Her scenes with Lucius echo her scenes with Maximus where she struggles to mend her fractured relationship with a hostile man. The twin emperors were dubbed by one review as “almost too stupid to be sinister”. Commodus, the villain of the first film played by Joaquin Phoenix, was fascinating because of his complexity. He wasn’t purely evil, he just had an inferiority complex and resented that both his father and sister loved Maximus more than they loved him. Commodus sought power to receive the praise and affection he was never able to get from his father. Caracalla and Geta are just crazy and thrive off of chaos. There’s no deeper character exploration behind that. Characters need motivations to be interesting and three-dimensional and these two are purely surface-level.

Gladiator II also evokes the original film in its visuals. Gladiator has a distinct late 90s/early 2000s aesthetic laid over Ancient Rome. The color palette and special effects specifically reflect a filmmaking style of 20 years ago. Gladiator II chooses to implement some of that same style in scenes like the afterlife visions or shots of the sky, particularly in the final scene. The most modern-day element of the visual approach is the level of violence and gore. In a post-Game of Thrones world, violence to this degree on screen has become not just accepted but expected. Personally, I think if you need to make your fight scenes extra bloody to make them exciting to audiences, they’re just not good enough scenes in the first place. I honestly don’t mind most of the violence in this film, but it was just a noticeable step up from the first movie, one of the only significant changes that was made. 

Some people will love this movie for the violence and spectacle of it all. It definitely was entertaining. But I wonder if people who have never seen the original movie will like this sequel better because they have nothing to compare it to. They won’t notice the repetition. Or maybe they’ll just be confused because of all of the connective tissue between the films. Ultimately, for me, Gladiator II just cannot get out of the shadow of the original film. Actually, it doesn’t even try to. It stays there willingly, using Gladiator as a crutch instead of trying to stand on its own. I’ve seen many comparisons to another legacy sequel film, Top Gun: Maverick. While Maverick obviously pulls a lot from the original Top Gun and tells a similar story, it also introduces new themes and ideas that are not explored in the first movie, like innovation vs. tradition, mentorship, relevance, and aging. The story grows with the characters. It somehow manages to combine the nostalgia and legacy of the original with fresh perspectives. Gladiator II tries to bank only on audiences’ affection for the first film to garner acclaim for this one without actually trying to say something. In a world of sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, etc., the goal is always to justify your existence and I’m not sure I can say Gladiator II gets there. Someone called it an “empty calories movie” which I would agree with. You won’t have a bad time watching it, but it won’t leave a real impact.

2024 Count: 30 seasons/specials, 63 movies