Director Report Card: Ridley Scott (2024)

29. Gladiator II

On paper, “Gladiator” probably didn't seem like the kind of movie primed to launch a sequel. Especially since its main character was dead by the end. Despite that, talks of a sequel to the sword and sandal epic began not long after the original was released. The initial idea that Ridley Scott and screenwriter David Franzoni kicked around would have revolved around the idea of Lucius as Maximus' son, heavily hinted at in the original. Russell Crowe, meanwhile, insisted on a supernatural premise that would see Maximus returning from beyond the grave. This lead to a legendarily nuts script from Nick Cave entitled “Gladiator II: Christ Killer,” about the Roman gods sending Maximus back to Earth to murder Jesus and end the burgeoning new religion. This included an ending montage that had Maximus becoming an immortal warrior that participated in all of history's great wars. Such a premise was clearly too weird, willfully offensive, and metal to actually be filmed. Supposedly Steven Spielberg himself vetoed the sequel.

After that, the sequel entered development hell. Various behind-the-scenes studio shenanigans would scuttle the project but Ridley Scott remained passionate about the idea. For two decades, he held onto the insistence of making a follow-up to the Best Picture winner. In 2018, the sequel would finally get the official greenlight, the script once again revolving around Lucius as Maximus' son. “Gladiator II' finally went before cameras with a massive budget, somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million. This suggested the studio believed the film could be a blockbuster... Turns out audiences weren't not exactly scrambling for a sequel to a twenty-four year old historical epic, the film doing middling business. It also received sharply divided reviews, some loving it but most agreeing it wasn't as good as the original. Destined not to repeat its predecessor's Oscar gold, the Academy only nominated the sequel for its costumes. Seems like an anticlimactic result after so many years in development but the question remains: Is the film itself any good?

Sixteen years after the Emperor Commondus is killed by Maximus Decimus Meridius in the Colosseum, the Roman empire is now ruled by the depraved twin brothers Geta and Caracalla. They demand the empire expand, having General Acacius lead an invasion of Numidia. During the siege, a young warrior named Hanno watches his wife be killed and is captured as a slave. Taken to Rome, he purchased by trader Macrinus. Seeing something in the boy, Macrinus trains him as a gladiator and promises to help him achieve his revenge against Acacius. Hanno becomes popular in the colosseum. Lucilla – the daughter of Marcus Aurelius and Acacius' current wife – recognizes the new gladiator as an adult Lucius, her and Maximus' son that was sent into hiding for his own protection. Soon, “Hanno” is torn between two conspiracies: One by Acacius to overthrown the emperors and restore sanity to Rome and another by Macrinus to take over the empire and burn it down from the inside. 

Probably do to the historical influence of Christianity, we have a view of the Roman empire today as a decadent nation, where mad emperors threw debauched parties and Christians were fed to lions in the Colosseum. “Gladiator II” takes place in this (largely imaginary) version of Rome. Emperors Geta and Carcalla are portrayed as pale skinned, sunken-eyed, limp-wristed lunatics who are hungry for blood, both from the gladiatorial games and on the battlefield. We know they are crazed because one of them has a pet monkey. It's impossible not to see this depiction of a Rome on the verge of collapse, ruled by mad vulgarians and conspired against by a hostile military and people, and think of our modern political climate. Are modern right-wing politicians like Trump and Milei our modern equivalents to Caligula and Nero? The idea of an empire ruled by insane fascists, that is overextending itself and rotting in their own excess, feels uncomfortably relevant in the new twenties.

Throughout the film, the dream of Marcus Aurellius, of a Rome ruled by the people and for the people, is referenced. This is the grand idealized vision of democracy, that tyrants can be dismissed and a government directed by the average man is possible. Pointedly, Aurellius' idea of a freely elected Rome is referred to as dead all throughout the film. Acacius thinks a military coup is necessary, to dispose the mad emperors and restore Rome to its former glory. Macrinus thinks the empire needs to be destroyed, that the rebuilding can only begin after the old world is burnt down. Rather than support either of these ideas, “Gladiator II” ultimately goes in a more optimistic direction, a right and pure savior emerging to save the day. However, the evidence the sequel presents that the empire – and its modern equivalents??? – must be vanquished before something healthier can emerge is more compelling. Ridley Scott has never struck me as especially optimistic about the future direction of society. That “Gladiator II” swerves suddenly towards a hopeful ending feels not only unearned but tagged on, as if the studio insisted on an upbeat ending. It's not as if we don't know the Roman Empire is doomed to fall. 

There is, perhaps, another reason why “Gladiator II's” ending feels so unsatisfying. The original “Gladiator” had several subplot but was ultimately focused on one clear idea. It was about Maximus seeking revenge but finding a higher cause than that. “Gladiator II” does not have that concise a premise. In fact, the film splits its runtime between several on-going stories. For most of its runtime, the story of Acacius plotting against the insane emperors, Marinus' scheme to seize power, and Hanno's battles in the gladiatorial ring never feel like they exactly connect. It's not until the second half that these threads begin to come together, the connective fiber being cleaved away until a more concise climax is ready to go. Sometimes, it feels like “Gladiator II” is unsuccessfully splitting the audience's attention and that it doesn't cohere into something more focused until the last third.

There's another problem too: The story thread devoted to Hanno/Lucius proves to be the film's least interesting. The first half of the sequel operates under the idea that “Hanno” has either no idea or no interest in his true destiny. He only wants revenge against the empire. After one brief conversation with Lucilla, his personality shifts entirely. He is now ready to carry out the vision of his grandfather and real father. We all know that Ridley Scott is fond of lengthy director's cut that restore footage excised from the theatrical cut. I'm honestly wondering if some of Lucius' character development wasn't left on the cutting room floor. Why you would cut scenes revolving around the change your protagonist undergoes, I can't say. Either way, Lucius seems like a totally different character at the film's end than he does at the beginning and not because he grows and changes. 

There might be other reasons why the journey the protagonist undergoes in “Gladiator II” isn't entirely convincing. Coming twenty four years after the original means this is not an ordinary sequel. “Gladiator II” fits right into Hollywood's favorite modern trend of I.P. Extension, the legacy sequel, follow-ups that slavishly honor the original while introducing new heroes that can continue the franchise into the next decade. Hanno is Maximus' son, his father existing in the sequel as a totally off-screen but practically deified figure. He's spoken of in hushed tones, as a great man who stood up to tyranny. His armor is suspended in a tomb like it's a religious alter. Lucius donning his dad's armor is treated like Bruce Wayne putting the Batman cowl on for the first time. This pairs with a script that closely follows the original's structure, of a gladiator driven by revenge who soon fights to free the people from a dictator instead. This stuff comes off as totally inert, as if it's a demanded addition to the script that Scott and his team were not that invested in. “Gladiator” isn't “Star Wars” or “Ghostbusters” and doesn't have the history or mythology of those series. Does anyone care about Maximus as much as they do Luke Skywalker? Must we treat him with such reverence? The script says “yes” but the sequel's actual tone suggests otherwise.

Maybe Lucius coming across as a weak protagonist, whose personality feels pushed around by the whims of the script, aren't the fault of the writing nor the demands of the legacy sequel. Paul Mascal was hand-picked by Scott to play the role, over bigger names like Barry Keoghan, Miles Teller, and Austin Butler. That would suggest the director had a certain faith in the performer. In the earlier scenes, Mascal seems well cast. He is a physical force, his muscle rippling as he wrestles with other gladiators and bloodily dispatches them. When driven by his rage, such as in an effective sequence where he operates an ancient rowing machine all by himself, Mascal makes Hanno a compelling protagonist. However, whenever he has to express the other emotions in the script, a desire to bring democracy back to Rome or to honor those that have fallen, he is never convincing. Pablo Pascal, as Acacius, seems similarly shackled by the grandness of the script, unable to make the general into more of a character and less of a plot device. 

Despite a messy script and two leads that never quite get a grip on their roles, “Gladiator II” is still an enjoyable time at the movies. This is mainly because it allows Ridley Scott a chance to indulge some of his favorite ideas. The sequel is awash with ideas of familial resentment and lingering legacy. Lucius never knew his real father and ultimately must fill some big sandals, left behind by his emperor grandfather and revolutionary dad. His mother – played by Connie Nielson, as one of the few actors to return from the original – is married to his rival, bringing certain Oedipal themes to mind. That there is an unspoken longing between them, not directly incestuous but also not without that feeling, is unavoidable. Meanwhile, the twin emperors seem to be the type of sexually voracious decadents that wouldn't be opposed to screwing each other. In addition to obviously resenting one another's power. In other words, the intertwining desires of family – to honor your bloodline, end it, or feed back into it – is all over the sequel.

Operatic themes like this inevitably point the sequel in another direction that Scott has been known to favor. “Gladiator II” has more in common with another Scott directed sequel than I expected. As he did with “Hannibal,” the director piles the movie up with so many outrageous elements that it quickly veers towards camp. To match the tone of Roman excess, “Gladiator II” builds towards increasingly bigger and more elaborate set pieces. The sequel sees its armored fighters going up against CGI animals multiple times. Shaved baboons, a rhinoceros mounted like a horse, and bloodthirsty sharks in a flooded colosseum all appear. These lead to grand, bloody action scenes. More dependent on CGI than the original, you can still feel Scott's joy at being able to include a naval battle or a weaponized rhino in the film. The action choreograph is captivating, the editing is tight, and the action is exciting. The naval attack sequence especially so.

Not all the animal co-stars in the movie where made in a computer though. Geta has a pet monkey named Dondus, played by a flesh-and-blood macaque, which steals the show whenever she's on-screen. That's far from the only bold swing the sequel makes. The supernatural concepts that were prominent in earlier drafts are teased by dream sequences Lucius has of his loved ones crossing the river Styx. Naturally, Scott and cinematographer John Mathieson make sure the sequel is loaded with opulent visuals. A shot of Acecus exiting through a gate, sweeping aerial views of the colosseum, or carefully lit nighttime scenes all show the grandness we associate with the director by this point. The sets and costumes are grand and elaborate. 

Excess is the name of the day, in other word. And some cast members seem more aware of this than others. Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger as the twin emperors both ham it up to heighten levels, playing the roles as cartoonish supervillains. Denzel Washington, meanwhile, plays Marinus as grand theater. Denzel is exactly the kind of actor that can make theatrical proclamations come off as thunderous monologues. He plays the character as an unrepentant villain, a schemer who is always manipulating everyone around him towards his ultimate goal. “Gladiator II” is at its most alive when Washington is on-screen. He adopts an ambiguous sexuality for the character, making it clear that he's playing the role as camp. However, Washington has such a natural command of the screen, putting such power into any of his performance, that the character still comes off as an effectively intimidating force.  

Ultimately, “Gladiator II” is both a mess and a highly entertaining blast of cinematic insanity. The script packs in too many ideas while cutting down on other important details. Grafting itself so closely to the original, in terms of narrative and structure, only draws attention to how much the sequel doesn't live up to its inspiration. It feels a bit like Scott wanted to make a stand-alone peplum epic but could only get the necessary budget if it was a sequel. As evident as these flaws are, Scott and his team are clearly having fun going as over-the-top as they can. It doesn't always work, especially whenever we are suppose to be involved in Mascal and his hero's journey. However, any movie with this much creatively crafted and carefully executed carnage, and such joyfully hammy villains, is destined to appeal to me on a certain level. Perhaps Ridley Scott is in his own debauched Roman emperor stage here but rhino fights and boat crashes are more fun to watch than Lady Gaga hamming it up or Napoleon and Josephine fucking. [Grade: B-]