I count myself among the defenders of Ridley Scott's Napoleon. I respected the hell out of Scott's don't-give-a-fuck attitude — he made an historical epic with the most outlandish flourishes that felt distinctly his own. He clearly showed little concern for what critics, awards bodies and even audiences, thought. He had a vision for how the French emperor could be shown cinematically and went for it, muskets blazing.
He's done the same with Gladiator II — we just already saw this vision for a Romanic swords-and-sandals epic 24 years ago.
In place of Russell Crowe's Maximus, Paul Mescal steps in as Lucius, son of Maximus and Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). Living in Numidia under the alias Hanno with his wife Arishat (Yuval Gonen), their marital bliss ends when the Roman army invades, killing Arishat and enslaving Lucius.
Lucius walks a similar path to his father, forced to fight for his freedom as a gladiator and befriending a similarly enslaved North African. Instead of fighting tigers to show his value as a soldier, Lucius goes toe-to-toe with some really shoddy CGI baboons (in keeping with the other really shoddy-looking animals). And, just like his father, Lucius's identity becomes known to Lucilla after she watches him battle in the Colosseum, later visiting him in secret with the hopes of overthrowing the ruling emperor.
As Macrinus, the "stable master" of the gladiators, Denzel Washington puts on a masterclass in Shakespearean camp. Macrinus takes Lucius under his wing while also playing chess with the emperors and senate to capture some authority. Washington would be entirely out of place in Gladiator II if not for Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger as the petulant co-rulers over a falling Rome. The three actors provide audiences with the most theatrics and are some of film's few highlights — but it's still not enough to overlook the 20-year-old beats and lazy visual effects.
What makes the repetition of Gladiator II even more frustrating is the wasted performance of Pedro Pascal as General Acacius. Leading the Roman army across multiple campaigns to expand and strengthen the dwindling empire, Acacius falls into the archetype of colonial military leader with a conscience. Had the film focused more on Acacius's conflicts and battles (while employing the same same amount of excess), the film could have accomplished the Ridley Unleashed mission without retreading the same story threads. But as it is, we just get a version of Gladiator turned up to 11, and not for the better.
When Crowe asked if we were not entertained, it tapped into a type of filmmaking and story that audiences were clearly craving back then; and perhaps Scott has done just that again. Rather than stirring or moving audiences with any lasting effect, he returns to pure entertainment. I'd be the first person to champion such a shift, had this film taken any steps towards originality or actual effort.
Given how serious and cerebral the vast majority of films have become, Gladiator II should be a welcome rarity. Rather, the film only demonstrates how tapped out of ideas Hollywood has become, and simultaneously a display of how low the bar sits for our expectations.