Twenty-four years later and director Ridley Scott is still thinking about the Roman Empire. The director returned to the ancient arena with a sequel to the 2000 classic “Gladiator,” which came to theaters on Nov. 22.
Set sixteen years after the first film, it followed a new gladiator, Hanno, a Numidien slave who desired revenge against General Marcus Acacius. Meanwhile, Acacius and his wife Lucilla plotted against the tyrannical twin emperors of Rome. Paul Mescal starred as Hanno, Acacius was played by Pedro Pascal, and Connie Nelson reprised her role as Lucilla from the previous film.
Highs
The film balanced the action and the drama with strong performances and fight choreography. The actors delivered believable performances, despite having a weak script. The battles were fluid and brutal, at once sickening and entertaining as the film lived up to its name. All set within an immersive ancient world with a high production value for costuming and sets.
Out of the characters, Acacius and Lucilla were by far the most interesting. Continuing the legacy of the first film’s gladiator, they worked against Roman reality for a Roman dream, treading on morally gray ground. In particular, Acacius fought against the atrocities of Rome, yet was also responsible for these atrocities himself, making him the most complex, developed character.
Lows
The film’s plot was convoluted and confusing. While it attempted to be clever and twisty, it went overboard to the point it was nonsensical. The film’s antagonist was playing a four-dimensional game of chess with the Roman Empire. Although the acting of said antagonist was great, their motivation was unclear and their actions came out of the blue.
The protagonist, Hanno, was also a poorly developed character with unclear motivation. Though he began the film with a simple motive (albeit a cliched one), as the story progressed it shifted without much sense, as if parts of his character arc were missing. An odd thing for a movie that’s nearly two and a half hours long.
The length was felt. It’s not that the story didn’t justify a long run, it's that it was superfluous. There were characters and scenes that not only could’ve been cut without impacting the film’s story, these elements could have been replaced with expansions and explanations on Hanno and the antagonist.
If the length, convoluted plot, and poor characterization didn’t detract enough from the film, it also often looked like garbage with a heavy use of CGI. There were multiple animals in the film, which made sense given the film was about gladiators, but every one of them is CGI and stuck out like sore thumbs against an otherwise high production value. The animals weren’t the only poor use of CGI, as the film opened with Rome invading Numidia, a sequence that looked like a video game with inexplicably real people and flat lighting.
Verdict
Though it had a great cast, choreography, and some interesting plot ideas and themes, “Gladiator II” was a mostly unnecessary sequel. It was often a confusing, ugly slog to get through. Though it had great potential with this cast and concept, and 24 years to be perfected, it somehow needed more work. The first film asked “are you not entertained?” The sequel answered with a limp “no, not really.”
Rating: 5 out of 10.
Frank Remski is a film and theater reviewer for the Eastern Echo. He is majoring in media studies and journalism and minoring in public relations. He has worked for The Echo since summer of 2023 and has written both news stories and opinion pieces.
