Gladiator II (2024) is the next installment in failed historical fiction, disappointingly delivered by the director who once brought us Black Hawk Down (2001), American Gangster (2007), and Blade Runner (1982), among many others. It follows his previous lackluster historical fiction, Napoleon (2023). Despite plagiarizing its predecessor to an extent that would make President Biden blush, there’s little family resemblance between the two movies past crude nostalgia baiting. Lucius Verus (Paul Mescal), revealed to be the son of Maximus from Gladiator, was sent away by his mother Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) after the events of that film to protect him from assassins, as he is the grandson of one emperor and nephew of another, making him a potential rival to whoever sits on the Roman throne. Lucius lives with his wife in Numidia when their city is attacked by Roman legionnaires under the command of General Acacius (Pedro Pascal). Lucius’s wife is killed in the attack, he is taken as a slave and trained to be a gladiator, and he swears vengeance against Acacius. Unbeknownst to him, Acacius is tired of war and plots with his wife Lucilla to depose Rome’s corrupt twin emperors, Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger).  Now, not having a reason for existing does not a bad story make. Consider HBO’s The Penguin, for example. But a story that doesn’t need to be told does have a higher bar to meet when it comes to being told well. And here, Gladiator II doesn’t measure up. Despite being an almost shot-for-shot remake of the first film with the same character roles, it feels conventional and modern. There’s a certain kind of sequel that’s become more common over the last decade. It takes a completed story that doesn’t need anything more, fasts forward a few decades, and just repeats it with new characters and some minor tweaks. Ta-da, a reboot! Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the archetype of this kind of movie. Was it a bad film? Not necessarily. But it was a film that was cautious to the point of cowardice, a film that had nothing to say, and a film that seemed to have no reason to exist beyond making money. So too with Gladiator II. The only differences between the two are stylistic in nature — and are for the worse. Maximus’s character traits from the first film are broken up into the Lucius and Acacius roles, both of whom give thoroughly adequate but mediocre performances. The role of Commodus is given to the twin emperors, and to an extent Denzel Washington’s Macrinus, who is also this film’s version of the gladiator trainer Proximo. Macrinus definitely earns the superlative of the best character in the film, but that’s sadly not a high honor. The Roman emperors were finely acted and had the potential to be interesting antagonists, but they never got to really do anything and were just cartoon villains who twirl their mustaches and get manipulated by Macrinus. They capture a certain petulance that we saw from Commodus in the first film but lack his competence, humanity, and menace. For his part, Macrinus isn’t really a clear villain until the film decides he is at the end, and his conclusion is perplexing in light of his intelligence. Especially comical are the animals. Gladiator used horses and tigers tastefully, in a way that never broke your immersion that this was a realistic thing you were watching. In Gladiator II, one scene in particular features gratuitous CGI baboons in an incredibly important moment to establish Lucius’s martial prowess… and it’s impossible to take seriously. Equally absurd are the sharks. While the Romans did fill their arenas with water to reenact sea battles, sea creatures like sharks were beyond their capabilities. The trade of story immersion for a cheap “wow” factor was not well considered. It felt more like Sharknado than Gladiator. To be fair, the original Gladiator did more than its fair share in taking creative license, especially with the life of Emperor Commodus, and Maximus is entirely fictional as well. And while the first film leaves the events after Commodus’s death vague, the movie seems to end on a hopeful note. However, in Scott’s fictional Rome, Commodus’s death ushered in a period of chaos and civil war called The Year of the Five Emperors. More of a Roman nightmare than a Roman dream, really. But what the original Gladiator lacked in historical accuracy it more than made up for in plot, characters, and emotional resonance.  If you’re looking for the kind of vibes Gladiator II is marketing, you would be better served rewatching the first one. The sequel is dull, pointless, and worst of all, soulless. At the risk of taking the obvious layup, no, I was not entertained, and I don’t think you will be either. READ MORE: Is the New York Times Shaking Off Woke? Three Movies to Watch This Holiday Season “The Things We Do For England”: Watching Netflix’s Churchill at War The post Thumbs Down on Gladiator 2 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.