We Didn't Really Need 'Gladiator II' (But Somehow Ridley Scott Pulled it Off)

I was, in fact, entertained.

The original Gladiator was one of my older brother’s favorite movies. He’s seen it about a hundred times from what I can tell. He sings it’s praises constantly and particularly Russell Crowe’s performance as Maximus. He retains a deep interest in ancient history. Out of all my siblings he was the one most apprehensive about the thought of watching a sequel to one of his most beloved movies of all time (a feeling shared with many). His reaction to this movie would play a large part in forming my own personal metrics about how well I thought Gladiator II would shake out.

When I ask my brother why he’s so interested in ancient roman History in particular he gives me several insightful reasons. My brother has a very romanticized and idealized view of history — he enjoys the emotional connections to historical narratives that he can draw. He describes the warfare of the time as “primal, but romantic”; clear enemies and clear path’s. He has a strong fascination with charismatic leaders of that time period — he admires the personalities who can motivate and lead even in the face of certain death. He describes the period as “movie esque”.

What becomes clear to me after listening to him list all these things out is that it tells me that what he’s looking for is simplicity and clarity. My brother doesn’t just study history — he actively engages with it to obtain insight, engage in reflection, and gain emotional understanding. I think most guys who loved Gladiator are along a similar vein to that of my brother. Curiously, what my brother did not mention at all during our conversation was masculinity.

In Gladiator II, Ridley Scott was able to provide a lot of my brother enjoyed about the first movie. Clear bad guys and clear good guys. A telling of historical events through dramatic storytelling. High-stakes conflicts and compelling personal stories. Though it obviously takes some liberties with historical fact (the sharks weren’t a thing) my brother had no other complaints about this sequel.

Honestly? It’s hard to disagree with him here. While I am as much of a history buff as he is I can’t say that I have the same level of interest with this time period, but I do see the appeal. When done right seeing ancient Rome on the big screen — dramatized and romanticized to the extreme — is just plain cool. Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II is a crowd-pleaser. 16 years after the first film, Rome is being ruled by two corrupt twin emperors Geta and Caracalla. The grandson of Marcus Aurelius, "Hanno" (Paul Mescal) lives with his wife in North Africa where the roman army, led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) invades and conquers, killing his wife and enslaving him. Shipped to Ostia and pitted against baboons to test if he's gladiator material, Hanno quickly distinguishes himself and impresses the master of the gladiators Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who promises Hanno a chance to kill Acacius if he manages to keep winning his fights.

The story is engaging and never boring. I was, indeed, entertained. There's plenty of action going on to keep your attention, and even though it obviously takes some liberties with historical accuracy I didn't really find myself minding all too much. I’m not someone that goes into a major Hollywood movie getting hung up on such things. At a certain point you have to take responsibility for your own actions and know what you’re getting into. I enjoyed this much more than Scott's last outing in Napoleon (2023) — a movie that leaned too much on depicting it's two main characters as gigantic weirdos. A movie that would have benefited greatly from telling a compelling story overall rather than making the focal point all about one guy.

Mescal and Pascal are very obviously one of the two newest leading men in Hollywood, and while they are both incredible actors in their own right, it’s Washington who steals the movie. His performance as the cunning and cruel Macrinus is incredible. Denzel is going to retire as one of the greatest actors of all time and his performance here is a reminder of why. Washington does not miss a beat with his acting. He makes it look easy.

Gladiator II is a good a sequel as anyone could have expected it to be. A solid B movie. The film doesn’t have the same kind of magic as the original film, but it is still fine enough. If I had one criticism that stood out is that I do feel the film could have been trimmed slightly it wasn’t so major as to lose my attention. Say what you will about Scott, but he’s good at making movies and thrilling spectacles. I was left wondering if I would watch this movie again and if I would still remember it after a week?

The answer to both: yes.