*SPOILERS*
1. No plot
Let me first say that we are going to forgive Ridley Scott for making the main plot the same as it was in the first Gladiator. Yes, it’s contrived and sort of lazy. But we knew what we were signing up for.
Here’s the biggest problem we will fault him for: The most basic element of any story is that action is driven by the decisions of the main characters. In Gladiator 2, the main character (Hanno) never makes any choices that bear on the plot.
There is only one point where we see him make a decision, namely when he decides not to kill Acacius (Pedro Pascal). But Acacius is immediately killed anyway, meaning nothing was at stake in Hanno’s choice.
It’s worse than that, though, since up to this point Hanno’s entire motivation has been an abiding hate and desire for revenge against Acacius, and it’s not adequately explained why he would instantaneously switch off his bloodlust. Yes, the movie provides a surface-level rationalization of his reaction in the moment — namely, that Acacius tells him he actually loves his mother and cares about Rome — but it doesn’t hold up to a moment’s thought. Are we supposed to think that Hanno didn’t realize who his mother was married to? Or that he somehow didn’t expect Acacius, a high-ranking Roman general, to invade Numidia, the way his (Hanno’s) father did to numerous provinces? None of it makes sense.
Now, it should be acknowledged that Denzel’s character helps drive the plot. He’s a schemer who sets some of the action in motion. Unfortunately, though, a lot of what he does not make any sense if you think about it for more than a second. There’s a lot I could say, but I’ll just highlight two major problems quickly.
First, it has almost no bearing on the plot that he finds out that one of his gladiators is actually the queen’s son. Set aside the fact that he barely registers this realization, and consider just the fact that his grand scheme involves having the popular queen killed. It doesn’t make a difference to that strategy at all that Hanno is also thrown into the bargain.
Second, his master plan is to have the unpopular syphilitic emperor kill the queen and Hanno, and in the process become so unpopular that the public turns on the emperor and installs him, Denzel, as ruler. When the scheme falls apart, he then abruptly kills the emperor and the queen himself — which doesn’t make sense based on any motivation of his.
2. No character development
The main character, Hanno, displays zero character development over the course of the movie. We see him go from being a zealous-anti-Rome warrior in North Africa to becoming the emperor of Rome without any insight into what his interior thoughts are about such a monumental change in circumstances.
Also it’s worth pointing out that his character is badly inconsistent. In some scenes, he is a coldly revenge-obsessed aloof killer. In others, he’s a loose, carefree jokester.
Now, it might be possible to reconcile those two incongruous character attributes by concluding that he is just a cool, calm, collected person who is totally unaffected by hardship and violence. But then there’s one bizarre scene that totally undermines that explanation — a combat scene in which he breaks down in maniacal laughter and recites poetry in a crazed frenzy.
Even worse is his mother, who starts out the movie heartbroken and then has to project the exact same anguish in every scene. Monotonous.
In fairness, there is some development of Denzel’s character, although he has basically the same mannerisms and affect as the drug dealer he played in American Gangster. We do learn as we go that he is motivated to take over the whole empire and that he’s worked his way up from the games himself.
But, again, he is the antagonist. There is basically no insight into what motivates any of the good guys.
In fact, the audience isn’t even really given a sense of why the bad guys are bad. The two co-emperors are described as evil, and it’s mentioned that one is syphilitic, but otherwise there is no reason to think they’re particularly evil or root against them. Sure, it turns out that Denzel is the real bad guy, but the bottom line is that we are a far cry from Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix, in the original Gladiator.
Also, weirdly, this movie has no love story (Hanno’s wife is killed in the first few minutes and basically forgotten after that) and doesn’t introduce any new female characters. Seems like an odd oversight.
3. Terrible action sequences
All the above could have been overlooked if the action was cool enough. Sadly, it was a big step backward.
The movie begins with an invasion by a Roman fleet that, unfortunately, looks like a cut scene from a 1990s PC game.
More generally, Gladiator 2 is plagued by an incredible amount of low-quality CGI. Entire sets look like they were ripped from Second Life, making it impossible to feel like Ancient Rome has come to life.
Perhaps the worst scene is when Hanno and the other captives are forced to fight demonic monkeys, which are so badly CGI’d — they’re made to look so over-the-top and rabid — that they just look goofy.
But even worse than the bush-league CGI is that the action often makes no sense. For example, when Hanno defeats a monkey, he’s singled out as a top gladiator by Denzel — even though we can see in the background that all his compatriots also defeat their monkeys, meaning that there is no reason that Denzel would have been particularly impressed by him.
From that point on, Hanno is treated as a leader by the other gladiators. But it’s never established why. The first movie clearly shows how Maximus becomes a fan favorite and respected by the other gladiators. In this movie, it just sort of happens for Hanno.
It’s tough to appreciate the fight scenes because they’re just so thoughtless. One key scene, for instance, is a mock naval battle in the Colosseum. It could have been an epic spectacle, but I was distracted by the goofy CGI sharks and the fact that the combatants were shooting arrows right toward the audience with no reaction from the spectators.
With ubiquitous cheap CGI, poorly thought-out logistics, and a lack of clear rooting interests for the viewers, most of the fight scenes just felt weightless.
The one partial counterexample, which only serves to illustrate what was lacking in the other scenes, is when Pedro Pascal’s character is forced to fight Hanno even though he doesn’t want to kill him. It felt tense seeing him at once locked in a deadly struggle with Hanno while also trying not to hurt him. Too bad there weren’t moments like this in the other fights.
4. Incoherent themes
In all of his Boomer thoughtless historical revisionism, Ridley Scott did get a few things right and compelling in the original Gladiator.
Specifically, Maximus exemplified the Roman virtues. Throughout the movie we see him display martial excellence and bravery, piety, and faithfulness to his wife and family, as well as patriotism. In one key scene, he exclaims that “Rome is the light,” providing a justification for the empire’s brutal war on the barbarians and a defense of the city despite its corruption.
In Gladiator 2, the good guys — Hanno and Pablo Pascal — are willing to fight corruption, but there’s no sense that the empire is something worth defending, or that there are admirable qualities associated with being Roman. In Hanno’s case, it’s just the opposite — he has contempt for all things Roman right up until he himself is made emperor.
5. One thing the movie did right
One thing I loved about the original movie is that Russell Crowe achieved perhaps the ultimate pre-steroids-era physique. He looked like a powerful Roman officer/gladiator, rather than like a professional bodybuilder. In most of the action movies since, the lead characters are clearly just juiced.
In Gladiator 2, Hanno also looks athletic and strong without looking like he’s on HGH and steroids. Credit the movie for that.
Joseph Lawler 