Gladiator 2: a short review

If it's this life or the next, make it the next. Gladiator 2 is a masturbatory money-grab by Ridley Scott - avoid it (and all the other sequels)

I must admit when I first saw the trailer on Youtube, I thought it was parody, I even chuckled at some points. A garishly dressed-up Denzel, the Irish guy from the Sally Rooney thing, the princess from the first Gladiator (who remarkably looks exactly the same twenty years later). No, I was sure they were having me on.

But since I’m a die-hard fan of the first film, my interest was piqued and I did some more digging. Actually, this was no joke, Gladiator 2 was real. Even the name made me uncomfortable: the “2” hanging there ridiculously. Did no one recall that Maximus was dead? (It was the finality and injustice of his death made that first film so special.) Even Russel Crowe could not hide his incredulity about this sequel project in interviews. Apparently when he was approached for a potential role, he simply said: “I’m dead, mate”.

While watching this film, I could not help but think about two things from my childhood. The first is how much I loved the first film. It was between Shawshank Redemption and Gladiator for my top spot. Russell Crowe was utterly compelling - he carried a special gravitas, embodying the kind of hero every boy admires: charming and powerful and good. My parents forbade me from watching the movie, yet I defied them horribly and watched it countless times before hitting the age requirement in the red triangle. Yes, the violence was gratuitous, but it was built on something - a story with real depth, epic characters, and a nuanced script. A story with a beating heart may bleed. The themes of love and justice and revenge deeply affected my young male brain.

The second thing I thought about, while watching Gladiator 2, was an article my dad shared with my family many years ago. An interview with virtuoso jazz guitarist Pat Metheny - specifically his thoughts on Kenny G overdubbing the Louis Armstrong track “What a Wonderful World”. Metheny refers to this act as “musical necrophilia”, here is an excerpt (but really, read the full interview):

But when Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for him to defile the music of the man who is probably the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out, fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis’s tracks (even one of his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined possible. He, in one move, through his unbelievably pretentious and calloused musical decision to embark on this most cynical of musical paths, shit all over the graves of all the  musicians past and present who have risked their lives by going out there on the road for years and years developing their own music inspired by the standards of grace that Louis Armstrong brought to every single note he played over an amazing lifetime as a musician. By disrespecting Louis, his legacy and by default, everyone who has ever tried to do something positive with improvised music and what it can be, Kenny G has created a new low point in modern culture – something that we all should be totally embarrassed about – and afraid of. We ignore this, “let it slide”, at our own peril.

Let me explain how this is connected to Gladiator 2.

Gladiator 2 is bad. Comically bad. There is no Gladiator mystique, only a grotesquely derivative plot with some laughably poor acting. Everything about the film is second-rate compared to the first. It’s highest points do not even match the lowliest scene in the epic first film. The gratuitous violence of Gladiator 2 is built on thin dramatic gruel. At many points score, plot and script are lifted from the first film without any evidence of reworking.

I could describe pieces of this film and you would think I was describing the first film: a battle scene to open, the death of a wife, Rome in decadent turmoil, senators plotting against the emperor, a slave-owner with an agenda, a soldier with revenge in his heart. It’s all the same, but this time it’s slop. There’s no real tension, the revenge plot is blunted and confused.

The original was written to be great, while the sequel was written to make money. It will do so. It’s opening weekend has already pulled in record millions. Us original Gladiator fans are suckers, obviously.

And the cast? The Gladiator role is shared clumsily between Paul Mescal’s Lucius Aurelius and Pedro Pascal’s General Acacius. The revenge-seeking husband and the General split out. Together they do not rise to Russel Crowe’s navel. Neither Mescal or Pascal are bad actors - but they were always set up to fail. Each scene I remembered Crowe’s brilliant Oscar-winning performance, and cringed at these imposters.

And then there is Denzel Washington. The American Gangster superimposed into ancient Rome. He dominates the film without explanation or cinematic pay-off. He plays the role of a power-mad ex-slave with swagger and a complete lack of subtlety. Denzel is an iconic actor but he is no longer choosing roles for artistic merits - between his Equaliser paychecks and the $20M he got here: his motivation is clear. His time with great films is done it seems. He should not have touched this piece of Hollywood history for all the money in the world. I am not sure how he can look his previous co-star Crowe in the eyes.

Now to Ridley Scott - necrophile-in-chief. This film was not created by studio executives and mercenary movie-makers, it was created by Ridley Scott. Of Gladiator 1 fame. He created Gladiator, surely he is allowed resurrect it? Actually no. He should have been better advised, physically restrained even. Of course, I wanted this film to be good. Not only because I loved the first film, but maybe - just maybe - Scott could recreate the magic. Instead this is proof that taste does not always improve with age.

In the case of Kenny G defiling the work of Louis Armstrong - the crime is clear. In the case of Ridley Scott defiling his own work - the charge of artistic necrophilia should be downgraded to the lower range: closer to something like artistic autoasphyxiation (Norm MacDonald best described this term as “a dirty word for a dirty thing”.) Scott’s best defense, at age 87, is senility - but to me it looks more like hubris, or greed. For those that believe in legacy, this is a textbook case of tarnishing.

Gladiator 2 is emblematic of a greater rot in Hollywood. The scourge of the sequel, the remake, and the spin-off. Here is the list of upcoming releases screened in the lead-up to the feature film at the cinema: Lion King: Mufasa Story (prequel), Lord of the Rings: War of the Rohirrim (weird animation spin-off), Wicked (cringey remake), Wolf Man (Some low-budget Blumhouse horror film that does not sound very original). We’re at a low point for creativity in movies, and how that reflects the public’s taste.

Tinseltown has seemingly embargoed the shipping of original work. I wrote about Bill Waterson in my newsletter last week. Watterson was an artist of great integrity. He stopped creating Calvin & Hobbes at the height of it’s popularity. He had said what he wanted to, and moved on. But not only that - he refused massive financial deals to do movies and syndications. There was not a price high enough to bastardise his own work. I’m sure it’s for this reason that Calvin & Hobbes stands next to Gladiator as a formative influence in my childhood. Watterson’s example stands in stark contrast to Ridley Scott’s latest folly. (There’s even talk of another instalment - God help us.)

My guess is that originality is not dead (it can’t be suppressed), it's more that Hollywood is run by bean counters that will now only risk capital on the tried and tired and tested. And sequels still sell, even if the sustainability of the business is in decline. But after Gladiator 2 - I'm done. I felt sad after watching this unnecessary abasement. The entertainment engine will still tick merrily along, but they stop getting my ticket money for sequels. Pat Metheny said it well: “we let this slide at our own peril”.