Return to the Colosseum After Twenty Four Years What Is Wrong with Gladiator 2

In recent years Hollywood seems determined to bring back every project that once worked successfully, and now Ridley Scott has released a sequel to Gladiator twenty four years later. The first film became a legend, won numerous awards, and secured its place in cinema history. The new film turned out to be simpler and less impressive. It is not a failure, but it is not a discovery either.

The story unfolds sixteen years after the death of Maximus. The empire is ruled by cruel tyrant brothers, General Acacius is tired of the madness of power, and a young man named Hanno, who has lost his family, becomes a gladiator and dreams of revenge. One is driven by the idea of rebellion, the other by rage. It seemed that these two storylines could replace for the viewer the scale of Maximus as a character.

The problem is that the second Gladiator tries too hard to resemble the first film. All familiar elements are preserved. Once again we see brutal emperors, political intrigue, Lucilla, a gladiator owner, and the arena. However, this time it feels more like a retelling of an old story than an independent continuation. Many events seem like repetitions of almost the same scenes, and fragments from the first film only emphasize this similarity.

The characters in the new film are weaker than before. Hanno appears superficial. The viewer is shown his anger, but is not given the chance to fully feel its origins. Acacius, played by Pedro Pascal, is more interesting, but he is given too little screen time. The main villains look almost like caricatures. They are cruel and ridiculous, but lack inner complexity. Only Macrinus, played by Denzel Washington, comes across as a layered, cunning, and truly expressive character.

The battle scenes are staged effectively. The blows feel heavy and the movement is dynamic. However, Scott becomes too carried away with scale. Monkeys enter the arena, a naval battle is staged in a water filled Colosseum, and sharks appear. It is spectacular, but excessively digital. Computer effects sometimes pull the viewer out of the grounded brutality that made the first film so powerful.

Nevertheless, the sequel cannot be called a failure. It is a solid and spectacular film with its own rhythm, its own strong moments, and worthy performances. The problem is only that expectations were impossible to meet. The creators had to continue a story that did not need a continuation. As a result, the audience gets a familiar tale that is told again, but with far less weight.