Movie Review: Gladiator II

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” —Juvenal (100-200 A.D.)

There’s a meta textual aspect to watching “Gladiator II” (written as the gleefully ridiculous “GladIIator” in the opening credits) that I couldn’t stop thinking about throughout the entire movie. If one of the main points of pitting gladiators against each other in the Roman coliseums was to keep the masses entertained and placated so the emperors could continue ruling with strong public approval, then what exactly is the purpose of a movie that exists simply to entertain without nourishing thought and reason? Is it not ultimately the same thing?

Obviously, I don’t think Ridley Scott sat down to make “Gladiator II” for the purposes of social pacification or influencing political power, but there’s something so empty about the film that I felt actively dumber as I left the theater; entertained by the 140-minutes I spent in a dark room with strangers, but also left with absolutely nothing nourishing for my spirit, soul or mind. Which is fine, I guess? 

Not every movie needs to offer something more than a brief respite from the outside world. But I’m pretty sure the original “Gladiator” movie did and, if we’re not making historical fiction with the purpose of either educating modern humans on our collective past or making allegorical connections to our present and future, then what are we really left with? Just bread and circuses. 

 Don’t get me wrong, “Gladiator II” is fun and entertaining with Scott once again proving why he’s Hollywood’s go-to filmmaker for epic historical movies. With a career littered with massive, spectacle-driven films like “Gladiator,” “Kingdom of Heaven,” “1492: Conquest of Paradise,” “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “Robin Hood” and “Napoleon,” Scott can make movies like this in his sleep. But when he doesn’t find either an interesting story to hang all the expensive action set-pieces on or a lead performance grounded and relatable enough to carry the audience through the stupid bits, then he’s left with empty excitement sapped of all human emotion.

The story and structure of “Gladiator II” is basically identical to the first one with Paul Mescal’s Lucius (I won’t say how he’s connected to the original because I think it’s a pretty big spoiler that the trailers ruin for audiences anyway), a warrior from Northern Africa who is captured by the Romans in the first ten minutes of the movie, enslaved and then forced to fight in the coliseum for his freedom. Denzel Washington plays Macrinus, an ex-slave who is now one of the richest men in Rome and only hungers for power above all else. Macrinus purchases Lucius and pits him against increasingly hazardous gladiatorial battles for the entertainment of cackling and mildly insane emperors Geta and Caracalla (giving off strong Romulus and Remus vibes). 

Here’s where “Gladiator II” makes its fatal mistake as a movie. Almost the entire runtime is dedicated to different set-pieces in the arena. I love action movies and the idea of a $200 million epic that’s mostly dedicated to a series of escalating battles between the great Mescal and whatever next deadly horror is thrown his way sounds like an absolute blast. But Mescal has so much swagger that (aside from an early scene where he cries for a few seconds) we’re never really that concerned about him being in danger. 

 In fact, Mescal has an amused grin on his face for so much of the movie that he makes being a slave forced to fight to the death for the amusement of Rome look like it’s downright delightful. Plus, since he’s enslaved so quickly at the beginning of the film that we never really get a chance to get into the routine of his life or become invested in his marriage. We need to acutely feel what he has lost or else we don’t feel his pain. 

This leads to the film’s other biggest problem: there is absolutely no grit to the film, whatsoever. There was a tactile grime to the original that gave audiences a sense of place. Rome looked hot and smelly and dangerous. It looked itchy. With “2 Fast 2 Gladiator,” everything is sterile and designed to look impressive in an IMAX theater. So much CG is used to make everything bigger and more exciting that nothing feels immersive as an audience member. On paper, gladiators fighting computer-generated sharks from atop dueling ships (while inside the coliseum, no less!)  sounds ridiculously, insanely, stupidly fun -- to the point that it should be jaw-dropping to witness. Instead, it looks like a video game cut scene. As entertaining as some of this is, none of it has any weight or generates any emotion.

But Washington makes a meal of the scenery and will at least get an Oscar nomination. It makes me happy that Mescal is a bona fide movie star now because he’s nice and deserves it. Scott at his worst still makes compulsively watchable movies, and after “Alien” and “Blade Runner” he has a lifetime pass from me. So it’s not all bad. 

 It’s aggressively fun, nothing more and occasionally less. If this is what you want then “Gladiator II” has what you need. But there’s no food here, just a reminder that the circus is in town, and while there is plenty of bread to be had, it’s heels all the way down.