Review: “Gladiator 2” is fine
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6f32/a6f3204ac50af727d479c66e647d624c10c42b51" alt="gladiatorii-paramountpictures"
Score: ★★★
Around the beginning of the semester, I found myself writing about legacy sequels, so it feels fitting, and somewhat indicative of Hollywood’s stagnation, to end the semester doing the same. “Gladiator II” is a direct continuation of the Best Picture award-winning “Gladiator”, with director Ridley Scott returning to his acclaimed film with an almost entirely new cast of characters.
Returning to a franchise 24 years after the fact usually leads to a movie fully indebted to the original, but Scott’s latest thankfully avoids playing the nostalgia card too many times. Regardless, “Gladiator II” faces the same challenge as all other legasequels do —– justifying its existence beyond nostalgia and proving it has a story worth telling.
“Gladiator II” follows Hanno (Paul Mescal), a soldier living in the African kingdom of Numidia with his wife. After years of peace, Numidia is attacked by the Roman army under the command of General Acacius (Pedro Pascal). This attack leads to Hanno’s capture, and as the film progresses, he slowly ascends from prisoner to gladiator.
Does that sound familiar? If you’ve seen the original “Gladiator”, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. If anything, a comparison between the original film’s synopsis and the one I just provided reveals the key issue with “Gladiator II” —– the script is thin and unsurprising. Unlike in the original “Gladiator”, our protagonist is not betrayed in dramatic fashion, but instead thrust into action simply because his wife, who we knew for maybe a couple of minutes, died.
“Gladiator” was certainly not the most original story, but it had enough going on to stay interesting. “Gladiator II” feels even more contrived, as if it was written by collaging parts of every historical epic and fantasy film that everyone has seen before.
That being said, the film is still entertaining, if a bit dull and predictable. The principal cast is excellent and makes the material bearable. Paul Mescal has very little to work with but conveys a certain naïveté that separates his performance from Russell Crowe’s magnetic work in the original. Pedro Pascal also does a good job of humanizing a character that could come off as cartoonishly evil, though his character is given little to do.
The stand-out, however, is Denzel Washington, who plays Danno’s gladiatorial sponsor. Washington immediately commands every room he is in, and it’s clear that he is having fun playing a scheming Roman nobleman. His character hits all the same archetypal notes you’d predict (see Littlefinger from “Game of Thrones”), but his charisma overwhelmed my cynicism.
Outside of the performances, the action sequences are also solid. The choreography is strong, and the set pieces are creative. This film certainly takes a bigger approach than the original, utilizing the new filmmaking technology that has been developed over the last 24 years to create more fantastical moments.
However, this bolder approach makes the film feel too unrealistic. I do not care if the film is historically accurate (and neither does Scott), but the use of visual effects betrays the grittiness of the original film.
“Gladiator” feels real because it is real — there was no way to digitally cheat the Roman Colosseum arena in 2000. “Gladiator II” feels fake because it is fake — the scenes are more creative, but the actors often feel like they aren’t in the same room as each other.
This, alongside the flimsy script, makes “Gladiator II” feel lazy. Sure, I was entertained, but not as much as I should have been given the stellar cast. Ridley Scott’s recent output has been a mixed bag (though “The Last Duel” is worth a watch), and “Gladiator II” continues this trend. His ability to direct actors is still all there, but I wish he put more attention into polishing both the scripts he chooses and the visuals he employs. At the moment, however, what audiences are left with is a serviceable film, but one that also exists in the shadow of something greater.
More from The Rice Thresher
Review: Drake and PartyNextDoor’s “$ome $exy $ongs 4 U” is lackluster damage control
Drake and PartyNextDoor’s “$ome $exy $ongs 4 U” is an embarrassment — 73 minutes of recycled ideas, lazy songwriting, and some of the worst attempts at experimentation Drake has ever put on wax. It's a bloated mess of an album, proving that just because two artists have chemistry doesn’t mean they should make an entire project together. But the biggest issue isn’t just the lackluster music — it’s the fact that this album is Drake’s first release after his career-altering loss to Kendrick Lamar. Instead of delivering something impactful, he gives us limp attempts at reassurance and 21 half-hearted party songs.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b2b67/b2b6717b5681c07afea57cdc04e17d5947952c25" alt=""
6 romance novels to read if you’re feeling lonely after Valentine’s Day
Spend Valentine’s Day scrolling through others’ couple posts? Date stood you up? Here are a half-dozen romances to help ease the ache in your heart.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/164da/164da142c50fb6aebc6346f16a74315f39413d01" alt=""
‘¡Ritmo!’ 2025 brings art, soul and celebration to campus
The Hispanic Association for Cultural Enrichment at Rice hosted its annual ¡Ritmo! showcase Feb. 3, filling the Grand Hall with music, dance, poetry and Latine culture. This year’s event, themed “Arte y Alma (Art and Soul),” brought students together by highlighting the connection between artistic expression and cultural identity.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.