I Hate to Say This, But Men Deserve Better Than Gladiator II

As a cinephile with a penchant for historical epics and a deep appreciation for the art of storytelling, I found myself utterly disappointed by “Gladiator II.” The first film was a masterpiece that resonated not only for its grand spectacle but also for its emotional depth and the camaraderie it portrayed between men.

Last week, while watching the movie “Gladiator II”, I found myself reflecting a lot on men’s issues. It seemed like everyone else was doing the same thing. In the disoriented aftermath of the presidential election, people have been trying to understand why Donald Trump won so convincingly. This has led to discussions about men – men who voted differently from women, men who are resistant to feminism, and men who, facing a culture that no longer prioritizes their dominance, are turning away, potentially drifting towards extremist online communities, culminating in them being swayed by figures like Andrew Tate. The question on everyone’s lips is, “How do we reach these men?” Meanwhile, some liberals online propose creating a counterpart to Joe Rogan, even though it’s questionable whether Rogan himself would align with any particular political ideology. In the midst of all this debate, “Gladiator II” is being released alongside “Wicked”, but unlike the original, this sequel doesn’t live up to its legacy, leaving some viewers wondering if perhaps masculinity is indeed in a state of crisis.

It’s debatable if the shift in Hollywood’s portrayal of historical masculinity, from epics like Gladiator and Master and Commander to RETVRN accounts promoting alternative views on topics such as brutalist architecture and raw liver consumption, is solely responsible for a change in societal norms. However, it isn’t far-fetched to say that these movies, which were popular during the late 90s and early 2000s, had an impact due to their depiction of masculinity, camaraderie, and sentimentality. For instance, a friend from high school would become emotional when discussing Braveheart, reflecting the emotional pull of Mel Gibson’s 1995 drama as much as its violent battle scenes. In Gladiator, it’s not Maximus’s body being honored after his death, but Juba burying Maximus’s family keepsakes in the Colosseum and promising to meet again someday, signifying a deeper bond between the characters.

Regrettably, the character portrayed by Peter Mensah in ‘Gladiator II’ resembles Juba the most. However, this character perishes swiftly once the film departs from Numidia, a kingdom under siege by Roman legions at the start of the movie. This North African coastland is where our exiled protagonist, Lucius, finds himself, having been covertly dispatched from Rome by his mother Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), following the demise of his father who, in the sequel, we learn was Maximus. In the original 2000 film, Lucius was played by Spencer Treat Clark, while Paul Mescal assumes the role in this updated version, making his first significant studio appearance. Mescal, an actor known for captivating performances, seems to dissolve into the chaos rather than command it in this film. One of the ways he appears ill-suited for the role is his failure to convincingly embody a leader others would follow to their deaths. To date, Mescal’s career has been marked by female characters – from his breakout role in the TV adaptation of Sally Rooney’s ‘Normal People’ to his critically acclaimed part in Charlotte Wells’s debut feature ‘Aftersun’. He excels at playing enigmatic objects of desire but falls short when it comes to delivering powerful speeches, a challenge compounded by the somewhat muddled slogans in the script written by David Scarpa, such as “Where we are, death is not!”.

It’s more plausible to envision laughter than tears for the sequel of ‘Gladiator’, as the original film showed that such movies demand sincerity which this new one seems unable to sustain. Similar to Scott and Scarpa’s previous work, ‘Napoleon’, it finds itself in an awkward spot between unintentional and intentional humor. Fred Hechinger, portraying one of two power-hungry emperor twins alongside Joseph Quinn, delivers a performance so exaggerated that it transforms every scene into a comedic moment. Denzel Washington, on the other hand, shines as the villain Macrinus, providing some intriguing line deliveries (I enjoyed his “I own … your house. I want … your loyalty”) and flashing a menacing grin as he begins to understand that the slave he bought for combat is far more valuable than he could have imagined.

As a movie critic, I didn’t find myself enamored with “Gladiator”, but I must admit that its core, filled with melodramatic fervor about grief, justice, and restoring order, resonated deeply with me. The sequel, “Gladiator II”, carries over some themes from the original, such as the ideal of Rome as a more equitable society, yet it seems these concepts are even more elusive in this installment. The portrayal of Rome in this film lacks substance; it’s merely a collection of historical landmarks rather than a place that needs saving or destruction. It’s during the action sequences that the movie truly shines. The opening battle, where Marcus leads an assault on Numidia, is particularly gripping, complete with towers constructed for his army to scale the walls and annihilate the defenders, including Lucius’s archer wife. There are also spectacular scenes in the Colosseum featuring a rhino as a steed and a reenactment of a naval battle involving flooding the arena. Scott, the veteran director, knows how to infuse these action sequences with a brutal energy that overshadows any doubts about historical accuracy, such as the use of live sharks in water. However, the exhilaration of these action scenes serves only to highlight the emptiness of the rest of the production. While not everyone may dwell on the Roman Empire, those who do deserve more than this offering.

2024-11-11 18:54

I Hate to Say This, But Men Deserve Better Than Gladiator II

Read More

Minority Mindset