Ridley Scott resurrects the epic with Gladiator 2, 25 years after his masterpiece. But while the sand of the arena still shines, the epic breath has faded.
A visual spectacle, yes, but without guts
Once upon a time, there was Gladiator, in the year 2000. An ancient tragedy, a history lesson in blockbuster mode, it restored the epic’s prestige. Today, Ridley Scott returns with a sequel that, by trying to do too much, forgets the essential: the soul.
The script by David Scarpa focuses on Lucius, the son of Lucilla and nephew of the tyrannical Commodus. We follow Paul Mescal, our hero. He aspires to heroism. His quest for vengeance begins following a tragic event. The destruction of his peaceful life in Numidia triggered this quest. On paper, it works. On screen, it’s another story. While the action scenes are full of epic battles – gladiators against digital rhinoceroses, no less – it all rings hollow. It’s a bit like attending a feast without salt: the plates are beautiful, but you leave unsatisfied.
Ridley Scott goes into “minimum service” mode
We were used to Ridley Scott the visionary, who juggles with lyricism and dramatic tension. Here, it’s Ridley “the routine” we find. The spectacular is there, but the emotion has been lost along the way. The battles, though impressive, never reach the cathartic power of Maximus’s confrontations.
As for the characters, it’s a disaster. Paul Mescal struggles to bring Lucius to life. This protagonist resembles more an overwhelmed young intern. Less often, he reminds us of an ancient hero. Denzel Washington, though brilliant as Macrinus, doesn’t save the day: his character, intriguing on paper, lacks room to shine. As for the emperors Caracalla and Geta, they resemble two caricatures escaped from a bad Roman soap opera. And, let’s admit it, they don’t measure up to Joaquin Phoenix’s Machiavellian Commodus.
Between clichés and clumsy nods
The historical liberties are numerous, but this time, they fall flat. Caracalla, an emperor famous for his bold reform granting Roman citizenship to all free men, is transformed here into a cartoon villain. The political intrigues are simplified to the absurd. And what about the dialogues? When a character drops a “Make Rome Great Again,” we don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It’s a modern nod. However, far from enriching the narrative, it has the opposite effect. It plunges the film into ridicule.
Denzel Washington, the star that stands out
Let’s be honest: if Gladiator 2 manages to maintain some interest, it’s thanks to Denzel Washington. His Macrinus, a manipulative gladiator merchant, is a real breath of fresh air. Charismatic, subtle, he lights up an otherwise dull film. We simply regret that his talent is diluted in a script that too often leaves him on the sidelines.
A film symptomatic of a certain Hollywood: the great void beneath the glitter
Sequel or remake? That could be the subtitle of Gladiator 2. Ridley Scott, yet a master of visionary cinema, seems to have succumbed here to the sirens of the box office. By trying to capitalize on nostalgia, we forget to tell a story that vibrates, that touches, that transcends.
So, yes, the film will find its audience. It’s beautiful, spectacular, and carried by some talented actors. But it also illustrates a worrying trend: that of a cinema content to replay its past successes, without seeking to innovate.
In short: Gladiator 2 is a bit like eating a frozen dessert in a golden bowl. It’s pretty, it’s impressive, but deep down, it lacks warmth. Whether we don our toga or not for a potential Gladiator 3, let’s at least hope that next time, the heart will return to the arena.