I know I'm writing this before the movie has been released. You'll find out why soon enough.
I haven't seen Gladiator. I never wanted to see Gladiator. I had no plans to see Gladiator. I didn't want to see Gladiator II. I had no plans to see Gladiator II. I saw Gladiator II.
See, AMC has this fun thing called 'Screen Unseen'. They give you the genre and a teaser blurb. Here was the one for this movie: "Save on a never-before-seen film with a secret twist - the title will only be revealed at showtime!" How could I resist that when I have subscription movies to use up for the week? I'd been wanting to go to these but wasn't willing to pay full ticket price for them since they're single 7pm showings. Now? Not a problem.
I mentioned this to my cinephile friend (who also has a subscription) and he decided to go as well. I was pleased because I haven't seen a movie with someone in over a decade. It would be nice to have company for once and someone who's interested in movies is a bonus.
We're watching the leading commercials and previews while trying to figure out what movie it would be. He was looking at December 6 release dates and guessing which one it might be. We both laughed when he said it might be Gladiator II, since we both have the same opinion on going to see it.
As the movie started and the opening credits were rolling they looked ominously familiar. The production companies rang a bell for me. Then the movie title showed up. Gladiator II. We both used profanity as our reaction. AMC tricked us into seeing this movie.
We did discuss leaving because it's not like we paid for the tickets but decided to suffer through it. I think I'd suffer more because of my decades long informal research into the Roman Empire and I wasn't completely wrong. But I also accept that it's a movie, not a documentary, so as long as they make am honest effort I can forgive a lot of mistakes. At least during the movie. After it all bets are off.
My biggest peeve for this movie was the lack of time breaks. It didn't show the passing of time between situations so it quite literally felt like each new plot point happened the day after the previous one. Since there was a time sensitive plot point it got completely lost in the mix. By not showing character development over time there was no reason to get invested in the characters. Without that investment it's a flat movie.
My friend did point out that they didn't linger on the gore parts and that's true. There's enough to show what's happening and what the result was but they weren't extended scenes and gore wasn't amplified. It was inconsistent (two stomach stabs, different stabee responses). Considering it's a movie about arena fighting I'd say that's something in the favorable category.
The story depends on the audience not knowing much about Roman history, especially the legal aspects. Sadly for me, I know those. I'll get into that later. By playing fast and loose with those they can flatten out the story where there would have been significant problems. I'm fine with that for the sake of the movie. Not everyone is going to know the laws regarding slaves, their rights, the various punishments for infractions, etc. so those weren't mentioned at all.
Pedro has a few facial expressions - the weary general, the concerned general, the frustrated general, then back to the weary general. To be fair they didn't give him a lot to work with so they fit the character he was given. The 'weary general' expression at the beginning is a big set up for his role going forward.
The classic 'mad emperor' is doubled by having twins in the role of emperor. So, two of them ruling together. This is historically accurate, oddly enough. There'd been several instances of joint emperors to various extents for a few decades along with sole power ones. Mind you, for a long time the way the position of emperor was attained was to be adopted by the previous emperor who then elevated them into the position so they could keep it after the first one's death. But I'm pleased and surprised they used the real names for this movie. A plus for them and I had to look it up to be sure.
This is where things break down because the movie makes it seem like the position of emperor is a bloodline thing. It most certainly was not. It was a power thing. Romans didn't make much distinction between natural and adopted so it was the name, not the lineage, that mattered when it mattered. Spoiler time - the main character is supposed to be the son of the emperor Marcus Aurelius's daughter which, for the sake of the movie, makes him the heir apparent to the throne. They refer to him as Prince of Rome. This is so not true but again, plot required it.
The main character becomes a gladiator champion with a huge grudge against the general because the general just happened to be doing his job and ordered the person who shot one of his soldiers killed in battle. Spoiler alert - the person killed is the main character's beloved wife. So yeah. Vengeance thing going on here. Big foreshadowing that there's going to be a confrontation later.
The more interesting storyline, in my opinion, is a freeman maneuvering to become emperor. The politics there are glossed over but told enough to show the steps taken to get there. This could and did happen. Pretty much anyone could be proclaimed emperor. How long they stayed emperor was a matter of how well they knew how to hold power. There's not much in the way of buildup to this until he says that's what he's going to do.
This freeman buys the main character to be a gladiator. He promises him he can have the general's head. He's very certain of it but then again the promise costs him nothing. It might have been considered foreshadowing except there wasn't enough going on to make it viable during most of the movie. His 'rise to power' was an accelerated bit of story.
The former emperor's sister was just a mess of a character. She wasn't developed past the necessary parts and is a Mary Sue in that regard. Maybe she's got more importance in the first movie so that knowledge would make her more important in this one so I'll hold off on fully raking her across the coals here. Spoiler - she's the mother of the main character and sent him away after Maximus was killed in the first movie. Second spoiler - Maximus is his father. He's the son of an emperor's sister and a slave, which wouldn't give him any standing in Roman society. If anything it would remove any standing she had as well. Consorting with male slaves was not condoned.
So yeah. Battle scenes, pretty well done. The concept that gladiators weren't disposable, pretty well done and refreshing. The whole 'I'm your mother' thing, poorly done due to only meeting twice before him saying he'd give his life for her. The confrontation, mediocre in general (pun intended). The rise to power, shallow and disjointed.
Disjointed is a good word to describe this movie. As a sequel to a movie where the main character was killed they did what they could. There's a little footage from the first movie and possibly some CGI to make it fit into this one, I can't know whether or not that happened. Slave to possible emperor is the classic rags to riches trope. The inspiring speeches, required. The mad emperor(s), required.
They did a pretty good job representing Rome at the time. The profusion of beggars is a heavy handed visual for the state of the Roman Empire at the time, where the emperor(s) were more focused on winning wars than running the empire. It's pretty to watch when looking at the architecture itself.
On to things that bothered me, both historically and in the movie.
The emperor(s) were too exposed to danger. They had a swordfight staged ten feet in front of them with no guards between them and the two sword fighting slaves with nothing to lose.
The sea battle has crossbows and those are 200 years in the future for Rome. It's a plot point for the main character to pick one up to do a surprise shot at the Imperial Box. But they don't exist at that time for Romans.
The arena fights weren't what they should have been. They didn't just have men show up and hack at each other with swords. Romans demanded spectacle. So they would pair men with different weapons against each other. The only time this happened was when the Emperors' champion, riding a rhino, uses a few different weapons. Otherwise it's some men hacking at each other with swords. The Romans would never have tolerated that when there were important games going on.
The defeat in the beginning of the movie has the captives being branded. Three things here. First is that the new slaves took their branding with barely a wince and it showed up like maybe a second degree burn. The second is that they didn't seem to have any medical attention after that and burns can be deadly. The third is that they wouldn't have been branded on the spot. They would have been sorted into what kind of slaves they were and then sold, when their new owners would brand them. Just because they were fighting in the battle doesn't make them soldiers.
They let the main character keep a ring his wife gave him. I would think that would have been removed/looted when he was captured. Slaves didn't wear gold rings. Plot point but annoying in that respect.
The crowds lined up to watch the carts bringing in the new captives, which would happen since entertainment is where you find it. They were throwing things at them, which probably wouldn't happen because they just didn't care enough about even more slaves to do that and they didn't want to damage someone else's property in case they would have to pay for it.
The general had his troops arriving at Ostia, the port of Rome. Generals were only allowed an honor guard in Rome. Remember 'cross the Rubicon'? The rulers were smart enough not to allow generals to bring their armies into the city. So plot point but very much not happening.
The emperors were far too unguarded in general. The fact that an arrow was shot into the box during the sea battle was proof of that. Plus there's any number of times when they should have been more guarded due to who was in the rooms/area. They were killed (spoiler) because they weren't guarded like they should have been, especially during the time there was a big unrest that they caused.
The Praetorian Guard wore purple horsehair and purple cloaks. Nope. Purple was for the emperor and no one else. I know they did this to differentiate them visually from other troops and I can forgive that one. The purple was also very wrong so I'll have to forgive that one too.
Big spoiler here. The main character kills the guy who bought him and who was almost at the point of being proclaimed emperor. Unless the laws changed drastically the main character, and every other slave the guy owned, would have been put to death. I know, I know. Main character. But it was a very big deal when slaves outnumbered free citizens so they made it so slave conspiracies were something to think about many times over. No matter who the main character's parents are, he's still a slave.
Those were things that stood out to me as problematic. The use of glass? Not wrong except in the street cafe where they would have used something far more durable. The brass trumpets instead of ivory? Not a big deal unless you're really into the minutia of Roman history. The setup of the arena that didn't have the eggs and dolphins for chariot racing? They weren't showing those so they didn't have to have the setup. Flooding the entire arena for the sea battle instead of using tarred ships beams to make a pool? Again, the visual aspect of it. The sharks in the water? Not problematic - they did have them. The lack of variety of performers in the arena? It would have slowed things down since the focus was on the gladiators. The legal stuff? Boring to the audience and better not to mix up real and plot armor stuff.
I would not have chosen to see this movie. But having seen it I can say that if you liked the first one you'll probably like this one. For a sequel I think they did well to tie things together just enough so that this one can stand on its own. It's not one I'm going to watch again even with my free movies and it's not going on my media server any more than the first one did.