“What we do in life echoes in eternity.”
This quote from the film “Gladiator” might be true, but what we do in the year 2000 gets good reviews and makes lots of money. So, like any uncreative studio in the modern film landscape, Paramount Pictures decided to revive the Gladiator series for a new audience. With the original being such a beloved classic, expectations were set that, at the very least, a new movie could supplement the story in different ways. To a certain degree it does, and the movie as a whole is pretty entertaining, but everything it does can be defined as “good, but worse than the original.”
A great example of this phrase is the film’s characters. The new “Gladiator,” Paul Mescal’s Hanno, is good. Mescal portrays him well, but he has nowhere near the magnetism and personality that Russell Crowe’s Maximus had in the original. In fact, the film at times feels less interested in him and more interested in Macrinus, played by Denzel Washington. Naturally, when such a talented and high-profile actor as Washington is cast, the temptation is to use him more than the protagonist, because he steals every scene every time and looks like a complete pro. Similarly, Joseph Quinn of “Stranger Things” plays emperor Geta, a tyrannical lunatic holding onto his waning imperial power. However, the script does him no favors, as Geta is certainly not as convincing or impactful of a villain as Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus. Unlike Commodus, Geta plays far less of a role in the plot of the film and does not have a personal connection with the main character.
Instead, the character with the personal connection to Hanno is Acacius, played by Pedro Pascal. In the opening scene of the movie, he murders Hanno’s wife and destroys his home. These actions establish an interesting rivalry between the two, for Acacius is only following orders from the emperor and Hanno is blinded by revenge. However, Acacius is killed halfway through the movie, which means that the momentum of this conflict is stifled and the script has to quickly find a different character to be the source of antagonism. This choice is a shame because Pascal does a great job with his character and he could have carried many of the scenes in the latter half of the movie.
For instance, the first half of the movie is very reminiscent of the original “Gladiator;” a prisoner of war is trained in the arena to earn back his freedom and kill the evil emperor. However, the story pivots in the second half to focus more on a civil war and a power grab by Macrinus. While I am glad the story avoided a retread of the original, watching the direction the new movie went in made me realize why the original worked so well. In the first Gladiator, the simplicity of the story is effective because it allows the audience to focus on the relationship between Maximus and Commodus and the battle between good and evil. A classic hero versus villain story set against harrowing action scenes and great set pieces. The new film adds characters who complicate the story while losing the core relationship between the underdog gladiator and the tyrannical emperor. Ultimately, the final battle between Macrinus and Hanno falls flat because they are off doing their own things for most of the runtime instead of sharing the screen.
Although the story and pacing are weak, director Ridley Scott is a director who excels at large-scale blockbuster action. For example, the film opens with a great naval attack by the Romans on Numidia. Although the battle contains thousands of individuals, Scott centers the action on Hanno and Acacius while building tension the entire time. Fireballs, explosions and arrows scatter the landscape creating an enthralling scene of destruction. Meanwhile, my favorite scene came during a mock naval battle in the flooded Colosseum (yes, a real thing) — Hanno leads his crew into ramming his vessel through the enemy ship with soldiers falling into shark-infested water below. The carnage in this movie really must be witnessed on the big screen to be truly appreciated, for it is some of the best out there right now.
Ultimately, “Gladiator II” is fine, but it is nothing more than a forgettable legacy sequel in an oversaturated market. Yes the action is good and the effects make sense relative to the budget, but it misses the sauce that the original movie had. If you like the original, you will probably like this movie, but I think overall it’s a downgrade. Nothing here will resonate with me. Rather, the film was worth the price of admission as a piece of instant gratification media. Overall, “Gladiator II” will not echo in eternity like the first. In fact, it probably won’t even echo into next week.
3/5 stars