Gladiator II

Let's get one thing out of the way: it would be silly to go into Gladiator II expecting anything more than a nod to historical accuracy. This is directed by Ridley Scott after all, the man who brought us Napoleon, in which the titular general is portrayed as a buffoon who bombards the Egyptian pyramids. That said, I don't think fact checkers should "Get a life". Pointing out the reality is just an attempt to prevent the settling in of misconceptions, and doesn't have to be a detriment to the movie. It's fun to compare fiction to real life, and examining why certain choices were made (or not made) can be an illuminating way to view a film. It can even provide a window into the writer and/or director's intent, or teach you about approaches to narrative filmmaking and what makes a movie watchable.

So no, there were no sharks in the Coliseum (although it seems naval battles may have truly taken place). Nor had tea or cafes made their way to the West. Although many of the characters are based on real figures and real events, they're unrecognizable.

But none of that matters. This isn't a documentary, Scott isn't known or looked to for reflecting history. He's revered for his ability to tell a good story.

To that end, this is...mixed.

The central plot mostly follows the path previously tread by Gladiator. An enslaved warrior is bought by a patron at an arena on the outskirts of Rome, gets a chance to fight in the Coliseum, and surprises everybody by winning. Then keeps winning, even as the Emperor conspires to have him killed. He picks out the person most responsible for his current situation, and declares his intention to take that man down in a gladiator battle. All the while attempting to set in motion his own escape and the destruction of the corrupt Emperor. The parallels extend deep into the movie, as it echoes or directly subverts many of those plot points. Along the way, it constantly points at the 24-year-old movie, sometimes through visual references, sometimes through plot points, sometimes simply playing scenes from it. Even some of the changes, driven by their loose connection to historical figures, reference the first one: for example, the twin Emperors Geta and Caracalla (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger), whose curly hair and pale complexion and queer coding echo Commodus.

One of the more interesting deviations is how frequently the movie's villain shifts, enabled by the protagonist being far more interested in the destruction of Rome than fighting his way back into its hallowed halls. As a captured Numidian lieutenant who wife was killed in a Roman siege led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal), Hanno (Paul Mescal) wants nothing less than to strike at the heart of the Empire and destroy all that it symbolizes, endeavoring to take down various figures who represent its ills. His sights fix on the general, although the audience is quickly informed that the two men have a shared goal, leading to some tension as their collision course becomes more and more inevitable.

As the story barrels on, Scott makes a few fateful decisions in service of complexity, which have the effect of momentarily making the story more interesting. But ultimately, he's uninterested in going much deeper into...well, anything. He can't, really, because of the number of subplots he sets up and must keep track of. They're not so numerous as to become hard to follow, but they do eat up enough time in this 150-minute epic that we can't spend as much time with anything as you might like, apart from the main thread. Especially since the real reason we're all here is to see some spectacular battle sequences.

Which also brings to the fore a core issue they can't get around: Paul Mescal is not Russell Crowe. Listen, I'm a huge fan of Mescal, having first fallen in love with him in Aftersun, which has led me to see most of his features. Across all of them, his specialty is a deep mournfulness and emotional complexity, the demeanor of a wounded puppy dog who somehow remains hopeful, and his ability to portray a full body sadness. He's never been an imposing physical presence, and that could barely be clearer than when you see him standing next to the mounds of muscle he's fighting here. It isn't an automatic death knell for the film, you just have to adapt. Make him more wily, more clever, more of a trickster, and rebuild him into the inspiring we saw at the film's outset. There are some flashes of resourcefulness, such as creating a dust cloud to get a charging rhino to crash into the wall and throw its rider clear. But mostly, the film wants us to buy Mescal as an unstoppable brute, driven by rage and the desire to avenge his wife. While not the most outlandish thing movies have asked us to accept, it's distracting enough to take you out of the moment when he guts some truly huge dude in a clean fight.

It doesn't help that he must share the screen with Denzel. Washington plays Macrinus, Hanno's patron, who not only has a stable of gladiators and a penchant for gambling, but has a lust for power and an understanding of its machinations, which he uses to increase his influence from behind the scenes and to keep his fighters under control. Denzel's screen presence has always been second to none, and when paired with the ostentatious presentation of the Roman elite, there's just no question who the most compelling figure is. This most sharply to the detriment of Mescal and Connie Nielsen, reprising her role as Lucilla, now the wife of Acacius. The narrative wants us to be interested in their relationship and all that it means, but we can't take our eyes off Macrinus.

All of which leads to an incredibly daring and audacious climax, for which I have to give Scott some credit. I don't know it's the most emotionally satisfying conclusion to the story - it certainly has nothing on Maximus collapsing in dramatic fashion. I don't even know that it makes a ton of sense. But I do appreciate that Scott took a swing at rethinking what the ending had to be. That's admirable, even if it only sort of works.

I went into Gladiator II with little relationship to speak of. I only saw the original a few days before its follow up, although I quite enjoyed it, and lamented missing it on the big screen. Its sequel was the chance for a redo. And while the fight scenes often lived up to my hopes (even a few with Mescal), so much of the rest of the film did not that it's hard to walk away sated. Still, it was an enjoyable enough time, even as it pales in the face of the original.