We live in a time where Hollywood is constantly digging up old graves and propping the skeletons of great classics back at the table, hoping we won’t notice how they’ve dusted and decayed. Recently, we’ve seen it with popular intellectual properties like Beetlejuice, Indiana Jones, Bad Boys, Halloween, Twisters, The Exorcist, Jurassic Park—the list goes on.
Though most of these sequels have been sorry shadows of their originals, there are a few that have managed to capture that same spark their predecessor had. We saw this with the 2022 release of Top Gun: Maverick, which was able to channel that same charm it found in 1986. But how does Hollywood’s latest legacy sequel fair? Does it revive that same old magic? Or does it too only exist as a sad shadow of the original?
In 2000, Ridley Scott and his talented team of creatives crafted a masterpiece that changed the world through the hearts of men. Every grown man and young boy knew the name Maximus Decimus Meridius. The original classic, starring Russell Crowe, was nominated for nearly every Academy Award you can think of. It walked away with Best Effects, Best Sound, Best Costume Design, Crowe for Best Actor and Best Picture, making it one of the most prestigious films at the turn of the century.
Needless to say, the hype around Gladiator II is real. Especially since Scott and Scarpa have returned to the world of gladiators and glamour together, along with cinematographer John Mathieson, costume designer Janty Yates and production designer Arthur Max. With the gang back together again, they’ll surely deliver another epic classic a la Maverick, right?
Without a doubt, the cinematography, production design and costuming are the best parts of this film. Gladiator II is a feast for the eyes. Every prop and detail have been carefully considered, from the flowers in every vase to the animal heads on every table. The sets are outstanding and marvelously decadent, the colour grading and design is exceptional and the wardrobe is nearly as fabulous as it was in Gladiator (2000).
The action is epic, the choreography is gnarly and Mescal's dedication to the combat sequences cannot be overlooked. The film is its most entertaining when swords are swinging and slaves are scrapping, losing steam every time it leans into its political side story. Though the original plays a lot with its tone—to the point where each act feels like a different ingredient of the same cocktail—Gladiator II carries a monotonous consistency that has it feeling more predictable than the original.
Remember that time the Roman gladiators prayed to the Greek god of the sea? Thanks to Scott’s last film Napoleon (2023), it seems the legendary director has few gripes in taking creative liberties with historical events. Though the film pays homage to an iconic era of the Roman Empire, historians may find themselves overwhelmed with its inconsistencies. Meanwhile, audiences might find themselves overwhelmed with inconsistencies in the story itself. And herein lies the problem.
The best thing about Gladiator was that it had something to say. It was a commentary on hope—on how the love one man feels for his family is something that unites all men, all people, in contrast to a character who loves only power. Maximus represented the ideal man; one who stood up for his beliefs, who was strong enough to fight his way to the top and charming enough to stay there. He had charisma and honour so tangible it made us want to follow him into battle. It made us believe in the dream of Rome, as he did. It made us believe that the battles we face in our own lives are worth the struggle. That we, even as slaves to a horrible system ourselves, can make a difference. A real change.
Maximus had everything a man might want—money, infamy, power, massive biceps—along with control over Rome. He struggled with the weight of that burden because he was so righteous and incorruptible that he didn’t lust after what other men desired. He wanted to be with his family. He wanted to be a husband and a father. A family man. But Rome’s corruption bled through it all. It stole his family. He was a man who had everything... who we saw earn it, deserve it, then lose it. That’s why we champion him in his quest for vengeance. Why we follow him into battle. Why we pull on our armour and step into the colosseum behind him, ready to die for the dream he reminded us of. Because Maximus not only had strength and honour and charisma and power… he had heart. And that’s what’s missing from Paul Mescal’s Lucius in Gladiator II.
Mescal’s performance is being praised as ‘magnetic’ and ‘entertaining’, but he doesn’t command the screen the way Crowe did. His performance doesn’t rise beyond the words on the page. He doesn’t touch our hearts the way Maximus did in Gladiator, which is what makes the original stand so tall even after all these years. The people’s prince of independent cinema lacks the masculine gravitas that made Gladiator a classic amongst men. He might have the right amount of talent and clout to lead a studio film, but he doesn’t bring the heart we so desperately need in order to feel that desire in following him into battle.
As for the other performances, Joseph Quinn's subtlety towers over his castmates. It seemed he was the only performer in line with the vision of the project as well as the historical accuracy representative of this era and character. Though the movie features some heavy hitters in its ensemble, everyone else seemed to be acting as though they each starred in different projects, Pedro Pescal and Denzel Washington included. This caused the film to feel discombobulated at times where we needed it to feel harmonious. But in their defense, Scarpa’s script did them no favours.
Beyond the historical inaccuracies in the script, the ensemble were cornered by some pretty clunky dialogue. The story led us down the exact same path we witnessed with Maximus, with a few tweaks to the major milestones of Lucius’s quest. It was most interesting when it strayed from the familiar format, when it surprised us and when it brought us in close to the chaos. But the movie spends too much time chasing the crumbs its predecessor left behind.
It played cheesy and predictable at times, serving up recognizable tropes and sacrificing the quality of its story for the spectacular set pieces. Dare I say, the film might’ve played better had they abandoned the connection to Maximus altogether. It seemed as though they were desperate to use our love for the original to fuel this new story. Though it’s certainly a good popcorn movie with epic sequences and impressive action, it doesn’t stand next to the original… but wholly in its shadow.
Comments