A gladiator (Latin: gladiātor, from gladius 'sword') was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals.
What exactly are we looking for when we go to the movies? The answer depends on our connection to the story: nostalgia if it’s a sequel; enthusiasm if it feels like something new or refreshing; or mere curiosity if we don’t know what to expect. Or perhaps all these emotions get all mixed up in our heads, blurring the lines between what we seek, what we hope for, and what we really feel.
Ridley Scott’s Gladiator is considered one of the best cinematic epics of all times, although it’s not among my personal favorites. Its release at the beginning of the century marked the return of the epic genre in modern cinema and its success enabled Scott to continue exploring past stories with the same tone and scope. Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus, The Last Duel and Napoleon, released last year, continued this unmistakable trademark of depicting the grandiosity of human nature. And if you ask me, I see Denis Villeneuve as Scott’s natural successor. Time will tell…
The arrival of Gladiator’s sequel was one of the most talked about pieces of news in the world since its announcement. Maximus’ story and his quest for revenge marked a turning point in contemporary cinema, both because of its stunning visual display and the depth of its characters. In my opinion, the last thing it needed was a sequel. What’s going on with Ridley Scott? I understand his passion for doing movies until his last days, but who was calling for a sequel after the perfect ending of the original movie starring Russel Crowe? The emotional connection between the characters in the original film was the soul of the movie and even though I didn’t feel connected to the narrative, like every film lover, I couldn’t help but admire the impact it had —and still has— after so many years.
VISUAL SPECTACLE OVER SOUL
Current cinema is clearly saturated with visually impressive productions. “You have to see it on IMAX”, “It’s a movie made for the big screen” and so many other phrases from advertising campaigns try to convince the public that movies should be seen in theatres. I’m not particularly the type who needs convincing and, in that sense, Gladiator II is no exception. It’s everything you could expect and more. In fact, the trailers and the leaked information from a few months ago already suggested that the sequel would feature much bigger and more ambitious combat sequences and battles than the first one, which built significant hype.
In a year filled with extremely expensive and unnecessary sequels (remember that Furiosa costed $150 million and Joker: Folie a Deux $190 million—insane), Paramount spared no expense in breathing life into a chaotic Rome with a few controversial details that don’t tarnish Scott’s mastery of visual art; and Gladiator II didn’t fall behind. The settings, the recreation of ancient Rome, the colossal battles—everything is elevated to deliver a spectacle that could leave more than a few jaws dropping. However, there’s a detail that keeps on spinning in my head: the soul. Did Scott really want to make this movie or was he running out of ideas? How strong was the urge to carry on Maximus' legacy in a sequel?
WHERE’S THE STORY?
What made Gladiator so special was the way it made us connect with the characters. The humane and sincere figure of Maximus, his journey filled with pain, loss and his search for justice w the core of it all, more so than the action. Behind all that bloodshed, what mattered were the motives, the strength of a person to pursue their goal. The battle scenes weren’t just an excuse for visual violence; they were an extension of his internal suffering, transformation and values. Through his physical battle, the protagonist also fought his internal one, seeking redemption and vengeance, but also reconciliation with himself. That’s what made it stand out.
With Gladiator II, much of that emotional weight disappears; there's a growing sense throughout its development that this essence has been sacrificed in favor of spectacle. Sequels, especially of classic movies, often make the mistake of focusing more on recreating the same type of scenes and superficial emotions without offering anything innovative or relevant—no, I'm not talking to you, Top Gun: Maverick and Blade Runner 2049, you’re good for what you’re worth individually. The fact that Gladiator II doesn’t involve Maximus’ character—an understandably so, he dies at the end of the first movie—suggests that the emotional focus of the story is no longer the same and that there’s a lack of a central figure to deeply connect with, in spite of Paul Mescal's enormous effort.
THE FILLER… THE DAMN FILLER
Another aspect that raised a red flag for me about the lack of soul of this movie was the treatment of the secondary characters. In the original movie, characters like the Emperor Commodus (masterfully portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix) were fundamental to give the story dimension and substance. Maximus’ battle wasn’t only against the rotten Roman system, but also against the corrupt forces represented by people like Commodus, who embodied chaos and depravation at their peak.
In Gladiator II, the presence of the antagonists had the potential to introduce characters who were equally complex, sinister and charismatic all at once. But in an era when sequels tend to simplify villains’ motives to make them more accessible—or “more interesting”, maybe—from a commercial perspective, there’s a risk of losing any real connection. Denzel Washington is clearly having the time of his life, yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that his presence feels more like his Alonzo Harris in Training Day travelled in time to encourage Lucius to unleash all his rage.
Oh, didn't I tell you what the movie’s about? It’s basically the same as the first one, but with a flooded Colosseum, sharks, gladiators fighting monkeys, a digital rhino that makes Paul Mescal fly through the air and the addition of Pedro Pascal who, in no reality, could be taken seriously as a General—but, you know, he has to be everywhere these days.
Posted on DECEMBER 12, 2024, 17:03 PM | UTC-GMT -3
If you liked this article remember to give it a 👉 LIKE, put it in your FAVORITES, COMMENT 🗣️ , and FOLLOW ME for more movie and series content 📽
View replies 1