‘Gladiator II’ Review: The Sequel Is Actually Good

If you’re a fan of bloody battles, vapid emperors and films that feature Denzel Washington as a scene-stealing villain, then you better make sure your butt is in a plush chair for “Gladiator II,” which premieres in theaters nationwide Friday.

Sure, at HuffPost, we’ve lamented Hollywood’s insatiable appetite for reboots, remakes and sequels. But we were pleasantly surprised by how much we were entertained by director Ridley Scott’s follow-up to the Oscar-winning 2000 film “Gladiator.”

The historical epic follows Lucius, who is enslaved by the Roman army and becomes a gladiator. Macrinus (Denzel Washington) is a former slave turned well-connected arms dealer who sees his path to power through his newfound prize fighter. General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) leads the Roman army and is married to Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), who both one day hope that former emperor Marcus Aurelius’ vision of Rome can be realized. Instead, the Roman Empire is led by twin emperors Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) and Geta (Joseph Quinn) who live for the blood and violence that fill the Colosseum. The film, with a run time of 2 hours and 28 minutes, is a thrilling watch that pays homage to the original.

In this chat, a few HuffPost staff members talk about the performances, the battle sequences and film’s merits as a sequel.

I’ll be honest: I was not looking forward to this movie. It, like so many other Hollywood sequels, seemed like a tedious cash grab. And the continuous marketing efforts (character posters, etc.) to introduce this new cast, along with returning actor Connie Nielsen, to the Rome arena felt kinda … meh to me. I went in thinking the vibe would be … off. Not burly and unforgiving, yet still human, like the first one, but, I don’t know, perhaps silly and stripped down and pointless?

I was mostly wrong. I mean, in some ways, Paul Mescal is definitely a stripped-down version of shoes previously filled by Russell Crowe in the first film. Is that for the better? No, I just think it’s different, but still good in its own way. I have no question about Mescal being a good actor (please see “All of Us Strangers” if you haven’t already). But he definitely gives Lucius, an enslaved person confined to fight gruesome battles, a warmer, heartfelt presence throughout that solidly contends with the cruelty happening around him.

Speaking of cruelty, enter Denzel Washington. I totally thought his Macrinus, a slave-turned-slaveowner, would have a smaller role in the movie. But he ended up delivering the most fascinating performance in the movie. I could maybe even see a spinoff centering him (but please, Hollywood, do not make a spinoff). Washington is just that great as a queer villain who’s entirely self-motivated, conniving and will sell out his “friends” and kill anyone to reach the tippy top of the political ladder. (Imagine screening this movie just two days after Election Day, like I did. It’s hard not to make the very obvious comparison here. So, I won’t. But you get it.)

The supporting performances are all really thrilling to watch. Those include Fred Hechinger and Joseph Quinn as a pair of tyrannical twin emperors that are both imbeciles in very different ways. You can totally believe that they’d, of course, be the most powerful. The complete cast makes up a rich tapestry of deception, honor, power and redemption.

There’s a question that’s been on my mind ever since my friend brought it up, though: Is “Gladiator II” ethnically authentic for the place and era? So, I’m throwing that question into the chat here. — Candice

I, too, went into this film feeling like it was not going to live up to how incredible the first film was. I mean, it isn’t as good as the first movie, which I probably have watched a couple times a year ever since it was first released. But was I entertained? Absolutely. It was a thrilling ride to see this new cast wield an epic story. It was really nice to see Paul Mescal in this film. I loved him in “Normal People” and in “All of Us Strangers,” and this role is a stark turn from those quieter projects. I felt like he held his own as the star of this action film, and there’s really no sense in comparing him to Russell Crowe, though people obviously will and I’m sure already have in the handful of reviews that are out.

Those twin emperors annoyed me to no end!!! But that just only goes to show how effective their characters were developed. I finally had to remind myself that they are supposed to be unlikable! And that helped me deal with them whenever they showed up on-screen.

My man Denzel Washington was as incredible as you can imagine. Candice, I also went into the film thinking he’d have some kind of side role that was fun but not a main part of the story, but I’m so glad we were wrong. I want to see Denzel the villain in more films. Give it all to me!

Candice, you bring up a good point about the ethnic makeup of the characters. I did think about it especially early on in the film. I haven’t come up with a conclusion yet whether it feels accurate. And in the same fashion, I kept thinking about the 2024 election in the context of this film. I’d need to see it again to give any coherent thoughts to help make sense of it all. — Erin

I went into seeing “Gladiator II” with as little expectations as possible, outside of the rave reviews I saw about Denzel Washington’s performance (more on that later). Like you two, I was thoroughly intrigued by the cast and this continuation of such a grand tale, more than I thought considering historical epics don’t usually keep my attention. I’ll admit, I did have to fight through watching “Gladiator” because of its serious tone, but this sequel had me enthralled the entire time, even through the fight scenes that got extremely gory.

I thought Paul Mescal served well as the lead, and I agree, Erin, I didn’t feel the need to compare his performance to Russell Crowe because they’re two very different antiheroes. Also, like you two, I was shocked by how big of a part Washington’s Macrinus played in all the action, especially at the end! I had hoped we’d see him put on that dress, gold rings and go crazy like he teased on the film’s press run, and he certainly delivered. Washington plays a villain so well, he should seriously consider more roles like that in the future because he looked like he had so much fun on-screen.

Candice, you pose a good question about the movie’s ethnic authenticity. That’s a thought I had throughout the movie, particularly in the context of Macrinus, but I need to see more information before I can fully answer that. I’m hoping that once the movie is out that someone will interrogate that point. — Njera

As someone who’s just catching up to the “Gladiator” franchise, I’m so glad I watched the original film before checking out the sequel because the latter’s storyline relies so heavily on its predecessor, more than I expected. “Gladiator II” continues years after Maximus’ (Russell Crowe) death with his son, Lucius (Paul Mescal), now attempting to uphold the dream of a corrupt-free Rome first introduced by former emperor Marcus Aurelius. There are several callbacks to said dream and Maximus throughout “Gladiator II,” which makes the film feel less like a sequel trying to push the story along and more like a rehashing of events with way more blood and gore.

Nonetheless, the sequel succeeds at introducing new characters, like Washington’s Macrinus, and offering rousing fight sequences to reinvigorate this anticipated Roman tale. It’s the spectacle you’d expect from a Hollywood blockbuster trying to recreate the success of its first film, and, yes, you will be entertained. — Njera

I was so entertained. I wish I had rewatched the first movie before diving into this one, because I sure had to rely on my memory for some of the context the sequel refers to. And I am so grateful for the few, albeit very brief flashbacks. I do agree that this new film is less sophisticated in a lot of ways. It’s funny when I do think it’s trying to be, but that still surprises me. Because the first film is dead serious the entire time. The sequel leans a bit more into the spectacle and entertainment aspect, particularly in the hyperviolent arena scenes and whatever is always happening with the two emperors. But it still works for me, just in a different way. I think it raises an intriguing question about whether a country that is so deeply corrupt can actually be repaired with hope and a self-declared honorable man — or is the damage too irreparable? (Again, seeing this after Election Day gave me a lot of thoughts. Hope was not one of them.)

There’s an interesting throughline between the two films that, while they both have different identities that favor a progression in time, make sense together in a franchise. — Candice

As I mentioned before, “Gladiator II” does make a lot of references to the original film, specifically to Maximus and his legacy through Lucius’ story. Even Pedro Pascal’s Acacius shares some similarities to Crowe’s character, as they both served as Roman generals who were not content with how the Roman empire was being led. A few returning characters helped tie the two movies together, too, notably Nielsen’s Lucilla, who once again tries to overthrow the emperors to reclaim her father Marcus’ vision of Rome. For those looking for a sequel that’s actually a direct descendant of the first “Gladiator,” you certainly won’t be disappointed by the healthy amount of Easter eggs peppered throughout the film. — Njera

The fact that Lucilla (Nielsen) returns for this sequel feels like a welcome umbilical cord to the first film. Every time she pops up on-screen is a reminder that there’s a lot of “Gladiator” history here, some of which points to some unfinished business. Or, in Lucius’ case, hard feelings. — Candice

I also loved that the score sounded loosely like the score from the original film. I stayed to watch the credits to see if Hans Zimmer returned as composer, but he didn’t. The score was completed by Harry Gregson-Williams, who worked closely with Zimmer throughout the ’90s. Apparently, Zimmer passed on the opportunity to work on the sequel because he had some issues with Disney on the remake of “The Lion King.” I am a superfan of Zimmer and especially the “Gladiator” score because we played it in concert band when I was in high school. It’s so beautiful. Gregson-Williams did a great job with the music in the sequel as well and I’m looking forward to listening to it during some quiet moments at home. — Erin

Erin, I think you and I had a quick sidebar after watching the movie about what the actual fuck were those animals in the arena — and what was done to them to make them so mad. I think my eyes widened every time a new creature entered into the arena because those scenes were shot so viscerally, like the audience was in the ring with Lucius and the rest. Mescal really soars in these moments, too, because here you can actually see him wrestling with who he wants to be versus his destiny. These are bloody, vicious and rapturous scenes. — Candice

I looooove the battle scenes in this film. The shots are so good; there’s lots of blood and it’s all big and messy and brutal. They seemingly spared no expense to make these scenes very violent but also palpable. I kept jumping in my seat in certain moments and even watched through my fingers in some parts. I don’t know what the fuck those big black animals were but I kept calling them “sleek gorillas” after the film. They had so many muscles and were scary as hell. Clearly some kind of CGI, which I’ll talk about later. — Erin

I think I literally jumped in my seat when those vicious monkeys (gorillas, primates?) entered the arena. That scene reminded me of when Maximus had to fight in the Colosseum against those tigers in the original, which could’ve been a subtle Easter egg. But every fight scene in “Gladiator II” had my eyes glued to the screen. The opening naval sequence between Rome and Numidia, plus the final battle between Lucius and Macrinus were my favorites. So well shot with so much gory action. — Njera

Compared to the first film, “Gladiator II” felt a bit silly, and slightly unserious, at times. Top of mind are the tyrannical twin emperors played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger, whose Beavis and Butt-Head dynamic made it hard for me to see them as the oppressive Roman rulers everyone claimed they were. The CGI elements try to add more excitement, too, though they also felt a little over the top (I’m picturing the killer monkeys from the arena).

What I wish we got to actually see is more of Macrinus’ story, as the shorthand version at the end of the movie could’ve come to life in a few brief flashbacks. However, the decision to leave that out is understandable considering the film’s already long runtime. To your earlier point, Candice, Washington’s character could very well have his own spinoff (though I agree Hollywood shouldn’t actually make one). — Njera

Yeah, and I understand that Washington isn’t supposed to be the star of the movie. Like Joaquin Phoenix in the first film, he plays a maniacal supporting role, which is part of why the two characters are so pissed all the time. They both want to be main characters, but they’re not. And I do agree that the film is deeply unserious in several fleeting scenes or exchanges. Some of that comes out in Washington’s performance (his delivery of “politicsss” has stayed in my head for weeks), and definitely Hechinger and Quinn. Though, I still think there’s something to be said about them being so vapid and powerful and how that reflects a more modern society (that is in many ways just as medieval and nonsensical as ever).

If I were to think of one thing that stuck out to me in an odd way is the pivot in Lucius’ relationship with his mom (Nielsen) and her husband (Pedro Pascal). I don’t want to spoil it, but that just didn’t seem totally honest to me … or maybe it happened too fast? “Gladiator II” is coming out at a time when many are more critical of alpha male heroes (more like Crowe’s character in the first film), so I wonder if that factored into what happens here.

And I do think my friend’s question about racial authenticity is a valid one. In director Ridley Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa’s efforts to appeal to broader audiences today, both socially and racially, did he stay true to the time? — Candice

The one thing that kept killing me was all the CGI. I’m not an expert on this at all, but during the killer monkeys scene and even the scenes where the ships were sailing, I was like why does it all look so fake? It might be because I was sitting pretty close to the screen in the IMAX theater, but I was not impressed with some of these technical moments. I also was getting annoyed at some of the lighting choices. I kept feeling like Denzel was not lit very well. There’s a scene where Macrinus is talking to Lucilla and she’s lit up like she’s standing right in the light and Macrinus is a shadowy mess. I guess you could argue that that was intentional considering the tenor of his character, but I literally could not see his face. — Erin

It’s a two-and-a-half-hour movie that actually kept my attention the whole time. I was totally into the cattiness, ugliness and surprising heart of it all. — Candice

The action in “Gladiator II” was as captivating as the many backstories that called back to the original film, something I can always appreciate in a sequel. The theater experience and surround sound definitely played a part in why I enjoyed the entire 2 hours and 28 minutes, but the conclusion made the whole film worth it. — Njera

“Gladiator II” is the kind of film that you’ll be so glad that you saw it in a movie theater, and it is entertaining and even thoughtful, in ways that will surprise even the most diehard fans of the original film. — Erin