Gladiator II (Christian Movie Review)
Gladiator II is an entertaining sequel that goes bigger but not better, providing plenty of fun and violent spectacles for audiences, but little of the emotional depth that made the original great.
About the Film
There was a degree of irony with Ridley Scott’s Gladiator (2000), as audiences were asked to feel the grim horror at the dehumanizing spectacle of death in the Roman Colosseum, while simultaneously cheering in the movie theater with mouths full of popcorn as the film delivered plenty of bloody carnage for their amusement. Amidst that tension, however, was a masterfully crafted and compelling human drama. Following on the heels of the failure of Napoleon (2023), director Ridley Scott—Hollywood’s master of historical epics—is returning to the well of one of his greatest hits. Gladiator II is an entertaining sequel that goes bigger but not better, providing plenty of fun and violent spectacles for audiences, but little of the emotional depth that made the original great.
In many ways, Gladiator II feels like a reaction to the icy audience reception of Napoleon. Whereas the latter film subverted expectations by demystifying its subject from a legendary war general to a mere pathetic domestic failure, Gladiator II is relentless in its attempt to give the rambunctious mob exactly what they want. After each new elaborate visual spectacle flashed across the screen, I almost expected Ridley Scott to appear on camera to ask, “Are you not entertained!?” The sequel is bigger in almost every way than the original film, both in terms of its overall narrative scope, and in the ostentatiousness of the set pieces themselves.
Due to the sizable technological advancements over the last 24 years, Scott now has the tools available to put on a more elaborate show in the Colosseum. Viewers are treated to a grand naval combat as sharks swarm the waters below, a battle between men and a troop of large baboons, and even a combatant who audaciously rides into the arena standing on the back of a giant rhinoceros. The action is pedal-to-the-metal, over-the-top fun, even as it crosses over the line into campiness with reckless abandon in ways the more grounded original seldom did.
Despite the base level entertainment provided by the super-sized spectacle, there’s a shallowness to the affair. To start, despite the amped up visuals, the special effects themselves are mostly unimpressive, with the digitally created animals being particularly unconvincing. There’s an artificial gloss to the visuals that keeps the film from achieving the gritty, tactile believability it seems to be striving for. The bigger issue, however, is the characters that are thrust into the middle of the spectacle.
The problems derive from the characterization, rather than with the acting performances themselves. Living up to the legacy of Russell Crowe, whose signature performance earned him an Academy Award for best actor in the original film, is an impossible task, but Paul Mescal gives an admirable effort. He has an impressive physical presence on screen and showcases a haughty confidence that differentiates himself from Crowe’s character. Others, such as Pedro Pascal and Joseph Quinn, also do well in limited roles. The clear standout, however, is Denzel Washington. As a man with intriguingly murky allegiances and ambition, he brings scene-stealing energy whenever he appears on screen. If Gladiator II is destined to receive any critical acclaim as its predecessor did, then Washington is the film’s easy representative for awards consideration.
Unfortunately, apart from Washington, the characters are never as interesting as the actors who play them. Ridley Scott would have done well to take a cue from Washington’s shrewd gladiator manager in understanding that violent spectacle is only as compelling as the human drama at the center of it. When the Colosseum is flooded and two ships full of gladiators wage battle against each other, it’s all visually exciting, but the movie hasn’t given audiences much reason to be emotionally invested in any of the combatants. The other gladiators that surround Lucius (Paul Mescal) are largely anonymous and interchangeable.
Even Lucius himself lacks intrigue. The film seems to expect audiences to root for him because he is the protagonist, rather than providing much to earn that allegiance. The opening scenes establish a human connection with his wife, but once he is enslaved as a gladiator, he is largely reduced to a rage-filled warrior brought on screen for action sequences. His shortchanged character arc is perhaps a consequence of the overall expanded narrative scope. Whereas the original Gladiator was a mostly contained revenge story of one man, Gladiator II strives to tell a more sweeping narrative about Rome, with increased political intrigue and subplots. The decision to rely on an ensemble cast, rather than narrow its focus to Lucius’s individual journey, can make the main A-plot feel like an afterthought at times.
Overall, Gladiator II is not without merit or entertainment value, even as it lacks the depth that has earned the original film its lofty reputation. The sequel unavoidably invites comparisons by closely following the same narrative template as the first film, which may leave audiences with the feeling that they’ve seen this all before, only better. Nevertheless, and perhaps it is merely the carnal human lust for violence that remains even centuries after the Roman Colosseum closed for business, Gladiator II is still an enjoyable experience. A legendary director providing a sweeping, spectacle-filled historical epic is what cinema is all about. In Gladiator, Maximus famously said, “What we do today echoes in eternity.” Nothing in Gladiator II seems destined to echo far into the future, but, if only for two bloody hours in the Colosseum, it provides enough to keep audiences entertained.
For Consideration
Language: There are 2-3 minor profanities.
Violence: As expected, this is a violent movie that doesn’t hold back the bloody carnage in the Colosseum. Several characters are decapitated, with one man having his head gruesomely cut off (the severed head is later carried around and put on display). Other characters have limbs cut off, or are hacked, slashed, and stabbed as blood sprays forcefully out of their wounds, and a character slowly presses a long needle into another man’s ear.
Sexuality: Reflective of historical Rome, many of the privileged inhabitants (primarily the men) are effeminate and sexually fluid, appearing to be equally attracted to males and females. The hedonistic emperors are frequently surrounded by both and male and female concubines. A character remarks that a husband is more interested in other men than he is in his wife, to which his listener declares this could be said of him at times as well.
Other: The ‘gods’ are invoked on several occasions. There is a repeated dream-like sequence that depicts a pagan afterlife where ferrymen transport deceased characters into the beyond. Whether these scenes are intended to be taken literally, or as near-death hallucinations, is left ambiguous. A character counsels the emperor not to use crucifixion as the means to execute a high-profile prisoner, as that is reserved for lowlife and “Christians.”
Engage The Film
Power, Idealism, & Realism
In many ways, Gladiator II is all about power—who truly has it, and what it takes to obtain it. Each of the major players in the story is striving for power, and each believes they have the upper hand. The twin emperors claim power due to their lofty titles and position. The general (Pedro Pascal) wields the power of armies, and Macrinus (Denzel Washington) attempts to claim authority by manipulating the will of the people. At various times, characters give lip service to the gods, but they are clearly driven by human ambition. The Rome of Gladiator II is a starkly Darwinian world where the strongest survive by preying upon the weak, and all that truly matters is who ends up on top (regardless of the death and destruction required to get there).
Against the backdrop of that bleak world is a debate between “idealism” and “realism.” There is frequent talk about the “dream” of Rome—a place where men and women are free from tyranny. An opening title card declares that 16 years after the death of Maximus (at the conclusion of the original film), that dream is all but dead and forgotten. A man notes with cynicism that the dream was “a fragile thing” that could only be spoken of in a whisper, lest it crumble. There is a constant tension between the way things should be and the way things truly are. One of the ambitious power players chides another that she lives in a world of idealistic dreams, while he lives in the real world of power and violence.
The America of today is not the Rome of the First Century, but these themes continue to echo in our present circumstances. The debate between idealism and realism is resonant in much of the current “culture war” rhetoric. Should people continue to hold on to a seemingly unobtainable ideal, or is a more realistic and pragmatic mentality required that plays the game by the established rules, no matter the costs, to obtain victory and cultural power?
Jesus declared to his disciples that the world would know they are his followers “if you have love for one another” (John 13:35), and preached a counter-cultural “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) that was a stark contrast to the violent, power-grabbing world around them. Throughout scripture, Christians are called to strive after the ideal of the kingdom—even if unobtainable in this lifetime—rather than adopt the methods and mindset of the unbelieving world. Rather than give lip service to God only to be driven by human ambition, Christians can take heart that vengeance belongs to God alone (Romans 12:19).
