My Thoughts on the Film, Gladiator II…
- Paul Emilio
- Jan 1
- 2 min read

My first instinct, before I viewed this film, was to watch the original Gladiator (2000), starring the eminent Russell Crowe.
But then I thought better.
If I had done this, I’d spend far too much time comparing the original to the sequel, which, I believe, would sour my thoughts about the current film. So I decided to watch Gladiator II as its own movie.
And I was still dissatisfied.
For me, questioning the suspension of disbelief always occurs during a film I’m watching that I eventually find subpar. In other words, if it’s a great film, I wouldn’t care to question anything. Gladiator II brought me to these moments when I questioned SOD: the (obviously) CGI killer monkeys, the water for the mock naval battle in the Colosseum—along with the CGI sharks—and the main character’s complete and unexplainable turnaround.
The performances were hot and cold as well. Former footballer turned actor Paul Mescal, who portrays the main character Lucius, appears to be more concerned with aping Russell Crowe than exercising his acting chops. Either the script was too lacking—which it most definitely was—or Mescal couldn’t cultivate the emotional depth necessary to make Lucius’ complete change of heart believable. Denzel Washington, as Macrinus, has the strongest performance in the film. But he, too, is confined by a poorly written script; his recognizable and completely credible struggle between honor and self-interest is completely shattered near the end of the movie. Macrinus eventually became the stereotypical, mustache-twirling villain. But hey, Washington earned $20 million for this role, so it must be okay. The only performance that was both strong and made any sense was from Connie Nielsen as Lucilla, a returning character from the original 2000 film.
Like many gladiator films, themes of honor, vengeance, and corruption peppered the script. Included were groanable nods to other great films about Rome, like Spartacus, Ben Hur, and dare I say, Caligula. Mostly, I watched the film until the end because I wanted it to end.
The script itself fell apart after the movie’s turning point. Director Ridley Scott, a very capable auteur, was either saddled with this less-than-satisfactory script or had tooth-and-nail arguments with the editors during post-production. But hey, he earned $10 million (or more) for his part in this film that really wanted to be a great movie. Perhaps he’s jealous of Washington’s financial takeaway.
I didn’t like the film, nor did I hate it. My overall reaction is, “Meh.”





It wasn't clear what the rating was for - my rating of the movie or my rating of your blog post. Maybe you need to specify that to be clearer? This movie got terrible reviews. I loved the first one, so even though this is on our list, I am not looking forward to actually watching it. What does SOD stand for? (If using abbreviations/acronyms, it's always good policy to define it either before or after the abbreviation/acronym.) I think Ridley Scott is getting more on the back end than Denzel, so maybe in the end, the two of them will end up making the same.