Gladiator II Review

I seldom venture into the world of movie reviews. I am not a film junkie in the “I have Quentin Tarantino posters all over my bedroom walls” type of way, but I certainly take pleasure in watching movies (which are seemingly becoming a relic of the olden days of long-form media). As blasphemous as it may sound, I only first watched the original Gladiator film a few months ago, just in time for the release of Gladiator II.

Upon hearing the overwhelmingly negative feedback the sequel incited, most loudly from die-hard original fans, I thought I would offer my own reflection and unsolicited opinions. I also hope that as a first-time watcher with little attachment to either film, I can offer criticism not distorted by the primacy effect. Additionally, I will try my best not to spoil the new movie in case you haven’t seen it yet.

I must preface this review by saying that for brevity purposes, I am ignoring the historical inaccuracies in both films and assessing them solely as artistic entertainment.

I won't be the first to acknowledge that Russell Crowe’s performance as Maximus casts a massive shadow, making it a challenge for any succeeding actor tasked with the sequel. Despite this, I think Paul Mescal, as an up-and-coming actor, did a good job at embodying the brute and sensitivity of his predecessor, while still giving the viewers a fresh character with his own subtleties. Mescal’s resume includes a collection of well-received independent films, but he is most known for his role in the TV show adaptation of Normal People and his work in theater. Many have criticized Ridley’s casting of Mescal as the new Gladiator, saying he lacked Crowe's stage presence. Frankly, I think it's a disservice to your own viewing experience to go in with the expectation that Mescal is meant to entirely replace Crowe – or even rival him. As a continuation of where the first movie left off, Gladiator II pulls from the first film but also adds its own flare to the emerging Gladiator franchise. Crowe and Mescal are widely different actors, so comparing them in this way assumes the second film was simply a remake of the first one and not intended to bring the story forward. For this reason, I think Mescal’s more introspective performance, flavored with dramatic silence and poetic exclamations, demonstrated his skills as an actor not yet flatlined by Hollywood.

Another critique of the new Gladiator worth mentioning is the excessive use of CGI, especially in comparison to the 2000 original movie, which was captured primarily on film instead of digital recording. In terms of viewing quality, I agree that the first film was more enjoyable. For a movie set in antiquity, it felt a tad bit out of touch to rely so heavily on CGI. It was distracting at times and pulled the viewer out of the immersion of the action. I thought the action scenes were interesting, and I appreciated the revamped Colosseum games, but I wish the CGI was either executed better or used more sparingly.

However, I must note that CGI is an issue much bigger than Gladiator II and extends to all modern action movies. In support of CGI, I understand it is difficult to make anything exciting in an age where we have seen it all. New technology has stepped in to create “out of this world” scenes that can extend beyond the restrictions of real-life set design. This does not change the fact that CGI leaves an artificial taste in your mouth. I hope the movie industry will take note of this widespread audience disapproval and shift back to more creative uses of set design and classic film recording.

While no one can play a villain quite like Joaquin Phoenix, Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger’s performances as the twin Emperors, Geta and Caracalla, really stood out in the film. In the first film, Phoenix played Commodus, a much darker, looming villain, plagued by the emptiness of never gaining his father’s respect and, by extension, that of the Empire. For this reason, his character is defined by a heavy sadness, underlining his motivations for tyranny. On the other hand, Quinn and Hechinger depict rulers infected by insanity and mindlessness, embodying a shell of a once great Empire. Their performance represents the laughability of unfit leaders, diminishing them merely to a concept: the incompetence of the totalitarian state. We know not of their complex struggles or longings for approval. They are simply fools. For this reason, I find their portrayal of tyrannical leaders more thought-provoking in terms of political discussions on whether justice can exist in the hands of unchecked power.

In circumstances where a single ruler possesses total power, is justice capable of being served, regardless of their state of mind? Is sanity even relevant, given that no one person could possibly dictate the needs of an entire body of people? Does the mere existence of totalitarianism negate any chance at justice? These ideas are explored extensively in John Milton’s political essay, "The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates," where Milton ponders the inherent abuse of power weaved into monarchies (applicable to Empires as well) that silence the voice of parliament (or the senate for sake of the Romans). A potent quote, which both Crowe’s and Mescal’s characters would heavily agree with, reads, “There can be slain no sacrifice to God more acceptable than an unjust and wicked King.” While no system is perfect, it's imperative we engage in these discussions to ensure the needs of the people, like the dream that was Rome, never become something we can only whisper for fear it will vanish.

Whether you are team Gladiator I or II, we can all agree that both films raise valuable questions regarding leadership, war, and freedom. I’d recommend giving Gladiator II a chance despite its setbacks. And I would like to note that hating on Gladiator II solely because it's a sequel would certainly be no way to “treat your heroes.”