Gladiator II (2024)

At this point, I find myself hard-pressed even to call this new Ridley Scott offering an actual historical film due to its complete lack of accuracy. I also find it virtually incomprehensible how Scott thought it would be a good idea to make a sequel to his original self-contained Roman classic; and to simply call it 'Gladiator II' just looks and sounds so lame, like a cheap straight-to-DVD effort.

So as with pretty much every Scott film, the visuals are to die for. In this department Scott delivers every single time right down to the smallest detail. I can't think of a Scott film that doesn't look good. Here, Italy and Rome have never looked better with the cinematography right on par with the first film. The CGI is used intelligently so it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb. All those ancient vistas, armour-clad armies, and aerial shots of the Colosseum look sumptuous.

You want ancient battles? Well as expected Scott also delivers here as well. The first battle set in Numidia (Romans vs. Numidians) is a rollicking set piece as Roman warships crash against the battlements of a North African fortress. This battle is short-lived but certainly satisfies on the war front (it could almost come from a Tolkien book). From there onwards it's off to the Colosseum for plenty of barbarian action which at times looked like something from 'Mad Max' blended with 'Conan'. It's hard not to be engaged.

Let's just cut to the chase here. Pretty much everything in this film is top quality and has clearly had a lot of hard work put into it. The problem is, was this even needed? Did this sequel need to be made? Obviously you already know I think this was a mistake. There was never a time when this was going to better the original film, and chances are, there was never a time when this was ever going to make as much at the box office. So why do this? 

The main plot here is so weak frankly. We follow Maximus' son Lucius, who lives in North Africa with his warrior wife. The Romans turn up, kill his wife, conquer his city, and take him into slavery (usual thing). Then with the devious and suspicious help of Macrinus (Denzel Washington) he must fight his way to the top to get revenge. Yeah, so it's kinda the same spiel as before with different characters and a few detours here and there, but essentially the same thing. On top of that, the casting here is poor, big names over the right choices. Pedro Pascal doesn't really have the right look for a Roman General and he tries too hard with his fake deep voice. Denzel Washington can obviously act but here he just doesn't fit. The way he talks, looks, his body language etc...It just doesn't fit the period. Some people look like they could belong in a historical period, others don't, it is what it is. As for Paul Mescal (Lucius), he's no way leading man material.

So visuals aside, everything is pretty meh with this. They throw in the classic operatic score from the original film here and there but it can't save the scenes. There just isn't the same emotional beat here at all. It all feels forced and like a collection of deleted scenes they pasted together to form a new picture, the scraps and outcasts. At the end of it all the big finale is a big bust too. A total anti-climax, completely falls flat whilst desperately trying to evoke the same emotions of the first film.

This is a perfectly good swords and sandals epic, had the original never been made. As I stated at the beginning, this was never going to top the first film and a sequel was completely unnecessary. This just felt like Colosseum porn, a opportunity to showcase more extravagant arena battles and fit a loose story around that.

6/10