Written by: Reagan Metzger, Staff Writer
ACTION: A review of the plot, actors, and more following the opening weekend of the highly anticipated film Gladiator II.
Thanksgiving weekend was an eventful time for movie theaters around the world. North American theaters grossed about $402 million from ticket sales of the newest anticipated sequels to fan-favorite films, such as Moana 2 and Wicked. However, the film that stood out among the rest was Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II. Released on November 20th in the U.S., the movie earned 55.5 million on its opening weekend and drew many differing opinions.
Film producers were aware that the casting for Gladiator II would be vital to its success. The original movie was ultimately carried by two main actors, Russell Crowe playing Maximus opposing Joaquin Phoenix in his role as Commodus. Both gave unforgettable performances that resonate with many, including myself, even twenty-four years later. Casting directors chose to rely on Paul Mescal, Denzel Washington, Pedro Pascal, and others to perform worthy to carry on the prestige of the original. This new era of actors gave very different executions to their roles. For starters, Paul Mescal gave a respectable performance as the main character and son of Maximus, Lucius. Many critics seem to forget the shoes that he is expected to fill. No, he did not live up to Russell Corwe’s performance from the original film – but then again, who can? I felt that his character lacked consistent depth, but I blame that on the plot. Lucius’s character development occurs very quickly throughout the plot. He completely redirected his opinions and perspectives on matters in the film and it was somewhat hard to keep up with. At one moment he is filled with rage and the next he is upset over the death of his stepfather who never had any presence in his life. His emotions made sense, but again it was hard to follow. However, Paul’s portrayal of a Roman gladiator was remarkable. He adopted an animal-like persona to convey the raw emotions of rage and determination within his character. Contrasting this performance was Denzel Washington’s lackluster acting. Many were thrilled to see their “fan favorite” in this film because he is very selective about his roles. He played Marcinus who is a sly and rich politician and businessman, vying to increase his dominance over Rome. His unique character later on becomes the film’s antagonist leading to the near fall of Rome. In my opinion, his acting was nothing special. Almost anyone else could have done a better job. He was given many points of dramatic dialogue to work with, but I just wish he could have done more. Denzel is known for his “criminal-like” roles, but watching him play the villain in Gladiator II, it just left something to be desired. Portraying the character’s quick wit and clever scheming came easy to the actor, but I wanted to see more of his cruelty. Although his performance did not keep me on the edge of my seat, Pedro Pascal as General Acasius, was by far my favorite part of the movie. Pedro Pascal does not get enough credit for his ability to perfectly fill any role he is cast for. This character’s progression was easy to follow because Pedro is a very expressive actor. Every glance, movement, and moment of dialogue was easy to interpret and valuable to the storytelling. General Acasius is a very wise man as well as a killer. He embodied pride as well as the strength and dignity that a Roman soldier relies on to survive.
The story’s revenge plot line stems from relationships and unfinished business from the original film. I was surprised and impressed with how writers were able to articulate such an extensive story. The two-and-a-half-hour run time seemed excessive to many as well as myself. I think that the film depended on visual aesthetics within the battles and scenery. The plot was fine, but better dialogue could have better supported its progression. Critics were confused when it came to historical accuracy. The first Gladiator film prides itself on being very accurate about Roman history. There were a few events and scenes that left audiences to wonder: “Could that have happened?” The answer was almost always no. The storyline’s main support came from paradoxes and references to the original film as well as previously beloved characters. I enjoyed seeing these references and it made sense for writers to do this. Gladiator II’s happy ending does not set up the possibility of creating a third film. Although there is talk of it, it will be interesting to see how writers could make this possible. The film’s mixed reviews leave me to believe that Ridley Scott should leave the franchise as it is.
I can conclude that I only enjoyed Gladiator II because of the original film that I fell in love with many years ago. Even though I probably won’t watch it again, I recommend it to anyone who liked the original. It was interesting to see how the story of Maximus and Rome ended after the original Gladiator’s cliffhanger. All in all, I give this film a 7.2/10. It deserves respect but holds no comparison to the remarkable first film.