Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

November 25, 2024

‘Gladiator II’ Takes Us Back to Rome, Or Somewhere Like It

Print More

To preface, I am not a history buff. I have not studied Roman history to any great extent, yet I am a lover of the original Gladiator. In fact, I was first introduced to the glories of Rome by my father, who is also a fan of Gladiator and its epic tale of Maximus Decimus Meridius. When I heard of the release of a sequel, I was wary. I’m here to tell all lovers of the stunning classic that Gladiator II falls short of expectations, failing to match the original precisely because it reaches too far.

Visually, this is a beautiful movie. The story begins with credits accompanying a moving painting of memories from Gladiator. The audience is dazzled with bright colors and brushstrokes coming together to form the faces of Maximus, Commodus, Lucilla and so many other beloved characters and scenes. We are then thrust into an action-packed battle not five minutes later, an explosive and attention-drawing fight between Hanno (Paul Mescal) with his fellow Numidians and the invading Roman army, led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal). Throughout the film, battle scenes are scaled up in comparison to Gladiator. The enemies are more fantastical, the environments are more extreme and the armies are larger. Yet the beauty is quickly overshadowed by the sheer size and amount of everything. Gladiator II is all about more, more, more. Hanno, later to be revealed as Lucius Verus Aurelius, is pitted against almost alien-like monkeys, engages in a naval battle within the Coliseum and calls upon a 5,000 person army to invade Rome. Even the costuming is more extravagant. Romans are caked with glittery eyeshadow and golden accessories. The twin emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) look like children who have broken into their mother’s makeup collection for the first time. While these over-the-top choices may have been made to personify the corruption and greed the opening crawl text sequence described, it comes across as attempting to outshine Gladiator through spectacle. The creators of the film obviously thought that bigger is better. 

When I consider this film as a sequel to Gladiator, I am disappointed. However, if I think of the film as a fantasy movie, independent of expectation and history, it is actually quite good. The basic premise of a lost prince returning to his birthplace in disgrace, only to fight for the people and against tyranny is a classic fantasy plot. The overall “extra” atmosphere lends itself well to a realm of impossibilities. Again, I’m not a history expert, but some aspects of this film had me scratching my head and wondering if that was completely accurate to the time period. 

I will admit, however, that going into a theater requires a certain amount of suspension of belief. I am willing to suspend my belief (a lot) in order to enjoy Gladiator II a little bit easier. Thus, considering the movie as an epic not necessarily tied to Roman history or Gladiator, my overall opinion of it increases. The acting is superb, the characters are as likable or dislikeable as the directors wanted, the political intrigue and scheming is absorbing. I was never bored while watching Gladiator II, and the experience of witnessing glorious sword fights and heroic acts on a big screen was enjoyable. The movie lends itself well to a larger-than-life event that captivates you while you’re seated and doesn’t leave a massive impression once you’ve exited.  Overall, the answer to the question of “Are you not entertained?!?” in regards to Gladiator II, must be yes, I am entertained. While not an instant classic or immediate box-office bomb, the movie delivers a spectacle that can be likened to the games in the magnificent Coliseum of Rome. It was lavish, costly, engaging, but eventually forgettable.

Jane Locke is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected].