In global release, the sequel to Ridley Scott's epochal peplum, which he conceived back in 2001. About what delights and disappoints in 'Gladiator 2' — in our review.
211 AD. Rome is ruled by two brother emperors — the vain Geta (Joseph Quinn) and the feeble-minded Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). Meanwhile, General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) storms the last free city in North Africa. After the fortress is captured, the Numidian commander Hanno (Paul Mescal), who has lost his wife, is taken prisoner and then sent to the gladiatorial arena. No one knows that Hanno, whose real name is Lucius, is the grandson of Marcus Aurelius and the rightful heir to the Roman throne. After a tryout in the form of a fight with rabid monkeys, he is bought by the scheming Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who is gaining political influence.
Whatever anyone says about him, credit must be given: he only takes on projects that interest him personally, disregarding fan opinions or studio bosses' wishes. Fans of the 'Alien' franchise can attest to that. Even considering the mixed quality of his films over the past twenty years, he still remains a true Hollywood auteur.
On November 22, the world saw the new historical epic 'Napoleon' by Ridley Scott, starring Joaquin Phoenix. And while the renowned director fends off critics with initial techniques...
Open materialSuch an approach, inherent to any great artist, deserves respect. And that is why 'Gladiator 2', despite its hefty budget of $250 million, is a large-scale yet still auteur cinema. The film with Russell Crowe did not need a sequel at all. The dramatic finale, where Maximus reunites with his family in the afterlife, did not even hint at further development of the story.
But the sequel to 'Gladiator' should not be compared to the same. Despite the fact that Todd Phillips also crafted an extremely original work that goes against the expectations of the majority, the appearance of that film was driven by the box office success of the original, not by the director's desire. Here the situation is different: Ridley Scott himself had been burning with desire to make a sequel for over twenty years.
'Joker: Folie à Deux' has hit theaters, a film that only the lazy have not criticized. This is undeserved, and in fact Todd Phillips has made a wonderful sequel. About all its...
Open material
In 2024, it finally reached the big screens. And although the film performed well at the box office and even received a warm reception from critics, it came as no surprise to anyone that it was predictably weaker than the original. There is hardly a person who hoped for a different outcome. And it's not that the 2000 'Gladiator' is an impeccable masterpiece for all time (obviously it is not), but that the sequel is absolutely derivative of it.
It's hard to say what the sequel resembles more — a pale copy of the first part, created literally from the same template, or a fan fiction based on it. Ridley Scott crafted 'Gladiator 2' according to the beloved Hollywood formula — 'more of the same.' Even the main character's arc at first glance seems unchanged from the original film, but that is not entirely true.
Perhaps the weakest aspect of the new film is its ideological component, which, believe it or not, is present here, but simply cannot withstand criticism. Paul Mescal's hero, like his grandfather Marcus Aurelius, cherishes a dream of an ideal republic with equal rights for all. Maximus also held these beliefs, but with the caveat that he was originally a Roman general waging war against Germanic tribes.
Lucius, however, is captured as a commander of 'Numidian barbarians' opposing the empire. Unlike Russell Crowe's character, he is not a detached hostage of circumstances, but an ideological opponent of Rome's very existence. I emphasize, not just of the two capricious rulers, but of the principles on which their state is built.
Therefore, the hero's drift toward reformism shown in the film, even considering his lineage, looks at least inappropriate. One might ask, then why is the Numidian fuss at the beginning needed in the plot, what are all these talks about the fall of Rome for, and why did his wife and mentor-leader die? The latter, by the way, is played by an actor from the series 'Spartacus: Blood and Sand'.
The key problem of the second 'Gladiator' is that it wants to seem smarter than it actually is. Ridley Scott takes the hackneyed motif of 'chosenness' and does nothing with it. Paul Mescal's character already has a trump card up his sleeve by birthright, and it is this circumstance that plays a decisive role in the finale, making the reference to the iconic 'I am Spartacus' call from Kubrick's film in light of the above simply indecent.
Take, for example, which handles the same plot trope, albeit carried over from the literary source, much more elegantly. There is both internal and external conflict related to the 'chosenness' of the protagonist. In Scott's film, the shift from 'I will destroy Rome and I don't care about my roots' to 'I will lead Rome' happens overnight without struggle or doubt.
Around the world (even where it shouldn't), the most anticipated film of the year is thundering — 'Dune: Part Two'. Denis Villeneuve returns viewers to Arrakis and again for almost 3 hours...
Open material
But if Mescal has nothing to play here, Pascal simply has no time. His character, on the other hand, is written much better than the protagonist, but he doesn't have as much screen time as one would like. This turns General Acacius into a carrier of a single function — to say important words to Lucius at the right moment so that he changes his anger to mercy.
The most interesting character in the sequel is Macrinus, played by Denzel Washington, but all his philosophical depth as an antagonist boils down to a single phrase from Cicero, about a slave dreaming not of freedom, but of his own slaves. And that is the whole of 'Gladiator 2': behind its pathos always lies banality, and behind its spectacle — utter stupidity.
How can one seriously take a film where white sharks swim in the Colosseum and a monkey is appointed first consul? Perhaps the latter can be dismissed as a subtle reference to Emperor Caligula, who made his horse a senator, but how to explain this nonsense with marine predators, mutant baboons, and rhinoceros riders? Everything is done with an emphasis on entertainment, but without regard for common sense, and it's better to remain silent about the historical accuracy of what is shown on screen...
But credit must be given to the sequel — it certainly turned out not boring. Yes, it is an absolutely unnecessary legacy sequel, to some extent parasitizing on the name of the original, but at the same time quite effective and, let's face it, sometimes captivating. But if you look at the film with an unclouded eye and throw overboard the joy of seeing fan service, then not noticing the white spots in the script, moreover stuffed to the brim with clichés, will be simply impossible.
Trailer:
Comments
0No comments yet.
Sign in to join the discussion.