Review: Gladiator II (2024)
★★★1/2
Hi all, and welcome back to rumblewrites. I know I’m a bit late with this one, but I only saw the film a couple of weeks ago so give me a break... this is my review of the highly anticipated Gladiator II.
Warning: *spoilers ahead*
Synopsis
Gladiator II is set 16 years after the end of the first film, during the reign of twin brothers Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). It opens with General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) leading the Roman army into battle against the last free city in the African Kingdom of Numidia. Living there is a solider called Hanno, who watches as Acacius kills his wife Arishat (Yuval Gonen) in battle. He is captured by Roman forces and transported to Ostia, where he and the other Numidian men are thrown into the Colosseum. They are set against some feral baboons as a test for their worth as potential gladiators. Hanno impresses the stable master Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who promises him a chance to kill Acacius if he agrees to fight and earn his freedom.
Meanwhile in Rome, the Emperors receive Acacius as a war hero, and they call for gladiatorial games to be held in his honour. While watching him fight in the arena, Lucilla recognises Hanno as her son, Lucius Verus. She tries to speak to him, but he angrily rejects her. Despite this bitter reunion, Lucilla confides in Acacius about Hanno’s true identity and the pair conspire to free him, and to restore Rome to a Republic. However, Senator Thraex betrays them, informing the Emperors of their plot. They are arrested for treason.
Acacius is thrown into the arena to fight Lucius, but when the pair reconcile, the Emperors order the Praetorian Guard to kill Acacius instead. This causes the people to riot, and Marcrinus takes this opportunity to seize leadership for himself. He brings chaos to the Senate, manipulating Caracalla into killing Geta, and then the Senate into overthrowing Caracalla. He orders Lucilla to be executed in the Colosseum, with only Lucius to defend her.
But Lucius has a plan: he sends a messenger to call Acacius’s military legions into Rome. Meanwhile, he rallies the other gladiators to revolt against their enslavers and defend Lucilla in the arena. During the fight, Macrinus secretly kills Caracalla before fatally shooting Lucilla with an arrow.
He flees the city, with Lucius in hot pursuit. The two come head-to-head just outside Rome, with their respective armies standing ready to attack. Lucius wins the duel, killing Macrinus and revealing his true identity to the armies. He persuades them to unite against tyranny and instead work together to build a Rome that his grandfather, Marcus Aurelius, would be proud of.
Analysis
Was a sequel really necessary?
Ridley Scott was apparently discussing the possibility of a sequel to Gladiator as early as 2001, but it wasn’t until 2018 that this was confirmed. We wonder why, 18 years after the original, Gladiator II finally came into being. Is it another in this recent trend of lazy ideas and rehashed sequels? Maybe. But then again, sequels aren’t always a bad thing: just think Aliens and The Godfather Part II.
I’m not going to linger on this point for much longer because I don’t really have an opinion on it either way. I’ll just say this: for all the vitriol about the unnecessary nature of a sequel, just ask yourself… is the existence of any film really necessary?
Historical authenticity v accuracy
Now, Gladiator (the original) is one of the few historical films I don’t really have a problem with. I generally get quite upset when the plot diverges from what really happened because let’s face it: history is just as good as any fictional story. But I also concede that authenticity is often more important than accuracy when creating a piece of public entertainment. And this is something Gladiator does very well. And I think the sequel succeeds in the same regard.
No, its main characters aren’t real, but yes they are representative of the diversity and citizenship of Rome at the time. Yes, the war in Numidia really did happen, albeit a good 200-300 years before the time of Geta and Caracalla. Yes, gladiators really were made to fight exotic animals and even partake in fake warship battles in a flooded arena. No, the depiction of politics, war and weaponry are not very accurate. But boy can Ridley Scott direct a good battle scene!
In the ways that matter, Gladiator II feels real. But crucially, it doesn’t claim to be. It thrusts its Hollywood epic entertainment value in our faces and presents Rome as a hyperbole of itself. But as an audience, we understand this. It’s better than pretending, and if it inspires a kid to look into the real history of Rome, I’d say it was a success.
The rest
Now we get to the real meat of the film: the plot and characterisation.
The first half of the narrative was pretty much an exact copy of the first Gladiator film. While I did enjoy Lucius’ story, the character himself felt like a superficially copied version of his father, and Mescal simply doesn’t have the same on-screen presence as Russell Crowe. There is an attempt at character development in his relationship with his mother Lucilla, but the reasons for his anger and subsequent forgiveness were never entirely clear to me.
The same is true for Macrinus: his motivations for seizing power are muddled at best. What I mean to say is that he has no more reason or drive than any other ex-slave - besides circumstance, I suppose. On top of this, his storyline feels rushed: his rise and fall happen so quickly, especially considering how little development happens to the rest of the characters (although, I think this is pretty expected given the short time frame of the film).
Perhaps it’s just the Pedro Pascal fan in me, but I felt like Acacius was perhaps the most fleshed out character of the whole film, despite his relatively small amount of screentime. His internal struggle with the morality of war versus the orders of the Emperors is excellently written, and Pascal plays Acacius with a degree of affection that successfully humanises him. I just wish we’d seen more.
My final point is about the Emperors themselves, utterly mad as they were. But for all this madness, what came of it? What had they done to Rome itself? Lucius speaks of a diseased city, one which struggles to reconcile its present with the past vision of hope given by Marcus Aurelius it so clings to. We are told that the fate of Rome and all its people hang in the balance, but where’s the proof? What are the consequences of Lucius’ failure? I understand that Gladiator is largely a character-centred franchise, but I’d have liked a little more show in this regard.
Overall, I really enjoyed Gladiator II. I suppose you could say I was entertained. But I wonder how much of that entertainment came from the original film, given how derivative its sequel really was.
What are your thoughts?
I don’t like blood & guts; can I still watch this?
If you’ve seen and enjoyed the original Gladiator, you’ll be fine. But if you’re put off by bloods, guts, gore, warfare, animal cruelty, and just general violence, I’d avoid this one.
This is such a great review, as, all too often, the reviews of some films are all about the hype. Thanks for a balanced view. We need more of these for sure.