SosaKnowsBall’s review published on Letterboxd:
*AMC A-List Watch*
Grade: Near-Masterpiece
Score: 89 out of 100
“The gates of hell are open night and day; Smooth the descent, and easy is the way: But to come back from hell and view the cheerful skies, In this the task and mighty labor lies.”
”Sharks in the Coliseum would have been impossible”. Shut up and get laid, nerd. Once again, I will be ostracized and ridiculed for my takes. I am prepared. After watching this, I fully understand the 4 and 3 1/2 star scores. Unfortunately, I saw a plethora of people claiming that this was one of the worst movies of the year, a failed legacy sequel, and even an embarrassment to its predecessor. All people are entitled to their wrong opinions, of course, but I can’t help but feeling like this is just a case of people not wanting to have fun in a theater. Because if I’m being honest, if you sat down and watched this Roman Empire epic for 2 hours and 30 minutes, and still are of the opinion that this wasn’t an epic romp, you might just be lying to yourself. Irregardless of all of that, are you ready to fight for Rome? Potential spoilers ahead.
“I was owned. And now I will own an empire.”
Ridley Scott continues to be the undisputed set-piece king of Hollywood. Going into this, you’re exactly getting what you’re expecting. Large, looming shots of a still-intact Coliseum in its prime. Wide and chaotic sequences of two combating forces at war. Grand and opulent scenes of the decadence and glamour of Rome. Yet at the same time, Ridley Scott knows when to bring the camera in closer to its subject. Tight and personal framing brings you closer to a smaller part of a grander conflict or is used to convey incredible importance at a certain part of the story. The costume design, the set design, and the camera movement all work together to create something so chaotically beautiful that only Ridley Scott can do.
“They can eat war.”
I guess before we get to any more positives, we should talk about why so many people feel like this is not up to par, because I agree with some of their points. First and foremost, it does feeling a rehashing or retelling of the first movie. There’s moments where it looks like something is unfolding exactly how it did in the first. There are definitely some characters that act the same way as protagonists and antagonists of the first. Also, it does get a bit lost in the sauce of its own plot by the last 30 minutes, but honestly that’s every Ridley Scott movie ever. Despite all of that and some other shortcomings, I don’t think this is a movie that should be penalized too much, in my opinion. Is it a lot like the first? Yeah, but the first was an absolute classic so not a terrible canvas to borrow from. Is it long and drawn out? Yes, it’s a historical epic. These things tend to run long. I thoroughly believe that despite all of that, Gladiator 2 is still very high quality and fundamentally sound.
“Rome drowns in its own blood.”
The story here is far more Rome-centric than that of the first. The geopolitical maneuvering and coercion is a lot more evident with characters like Macrinus, Marcus Acacius and Lucilla. I would have loved to see more of it, but this movie is called Gladiator 2 for a reason. Regardless of that, it’s incredibly interesting (and very worrying) to see the similarities between Ancient Rome near its downfall and our current state of affairs in the present day American empire. If it’s true that we’re getting a third of these, I would definitely love to see a lot more of the society of Rome and how their lust for blood and blindness to injustice defined their total collapse. Seeing the interactions between Romans and other countries or city-states was also very intriguing; seeing as the Romans were definitely not painted in a kind light there. Give me a Roman political epic during the fall of the Roman Empire, PLEASE Ridley Scott.
“There is no other Rome.”
The sheer star power in this cast is astounding. Denzel Washington, accent issues aside, makes for a ridiculously charismatic and entertaining villain. His political moves in the third act are some enthralling cinema to watch. Joseph Quinn, once again, shows that he’s one of the brightest young stars in Hollywood. I thoroughly enjoyed him in Stranger Things and A Quiet Place Day One, but his performance of an unhinged, tyrannical dictator that is one bad day away from a catastrophic crashout was riveting and hilarious to experience. His near-equal, Fred Hechinger, is also pretty great in his psychotic ways, but not as much as Quinn. Pedro Pascal was pretty okay, I don’t think they fleshed out his character or motives too much and it suffered because of it. Paul Mescal was the titular star and basically had the same arc Russell Crowe did in the first. Washington and Quinn carry the movie on their backs.
“This city is diseased.”
One part of me wanted to heavily dock points for the identical storyline and character development. Another part of me wanted to pettily give it 5 stars like Godzilla x Kong this year, just because I so was elated to see that opening with the gigantic Roman ships invading a coastline fort. In the end, it was the absolute hectic and wild twists and turns of the last 30 minutes that won me over. I would have loved to see both armies square off in the end, but I understand the artistic choice of Lucius vs Macrinus. Sure, Gladiator 2 has its clear faults, but even then, I think the fact that it was a well shot, acted, and choreographed Roman Empire epic should be enough of a selling point for anyone.
"I do it for the love of the sport."
Thanks for reading! Check out some of my links below:
2024 Ranked List
Sosa’s 24 Favorites from 2024 List (so far)
Ridley Scott Ranked List
Pedro Pascal Ranked List
Instagram
Linktree
Last Review: Wicked (2024)
