As an ardent and a generous film viewer, I am well aware of the perils of comparing sequels of original masterpieces. But when you have the same brilliant movie-maker in second one as well, you can’t help but keep your expectations high.
Gladiator 2, coming 24 years after the original oscar-winning magnum opus, tells the story of Hanno (aka Lucius), a daring solider of Numidia, who after getting conquered and enslaved by a Roman slave owner Macrinus, rises the ladder to become a fierce and winning gladiator in the Colosseum games. Set fifteen years later after the events of Gladiator 1, when the brave solider-turned-gladiator Maximus (Russell Crowe) fought to restore the dream of Rome to be a true republic, the state is still in shambles, controlled by ineffective and corrupt emperor brothers, Geta and Caracalla, with the senate and its members either largely impotent or corrupt. As Lucilla (Marcus Aurelius’s daughter, Maximus’s lover) and her current husband, General Acacius try to rescue Rome from its politics, and Macrinus devises his own vile plan to rule Rome, the protagonist Lucius uses his rage to fight the gladiator battles, and the evil rulers, growing ever stronger, and eventually realising his destiny of being the rightful heir to the throne and setting Rome on its visioned path of a great, free, prosperous and just Republic.
Like i said, when you have Ridley Scott directing the sequel after his genius first one, one can’t help expecting an absolute cinematic treat. But, it saddens me to say, that the film disappoints, and on many counts, unfortunately.
Starting with the story. Even though the film starts 15 years later, with a seemingly new character, Hanno (later discovered to be Lucilla’s sent away son Lucius) fighting as ferociously as Maximus did (as we know from first movie to be his father), and a new plot of Rome conquering new lands, it very quickly falls into an exact replica of the first film. Lucius becomes a slave, then a gladiator, and then a leader of all the gladiators, and eventually winning against the bad guys. Sure, there are new and supposedly surprising elements, with the character of Macrinus (Denzel Washington, no less), a former slave and now slave-owner, plotting his own game. But in essence, there is no new story to tell. Classics, when re-told to a new generation, can be powerful, with new interpretations, borrowing from contemporary culture and a topical relevance of what’s happening around the world today. Imagine the potential of telling the story of a movie like Gladiator (the common man’s heroic quest to fight for a fair and just democracy in a world that has lost its way) in 2024, with everything going on around us. But it is not to be. The film ends up being more or less a nostalgic replay of the first story, minus the genius performances by the central actors. Alas!
That brings me to the second disappointment. Paul Mescal, as the protagonist, to be fair, does a decent job of holding his role together. But Gladiator cannot be made with just a decent performance. Gladiator requires a performance of sheer force, brutality, presence, dominance, and gravitas that Russel Crowe had with his performance (for which he deservedly won the oscar). A performance that blew us all away, both in its intensity and and in its subtlety. Mescal, despite his best efforts, misses this by a mile. At best, Mescal feels like a Gen Z-on-a-bad-day version of Maximus - all talk, no impact. The other actors have the same unimpressive performance. The bumbling-almost-queer emperor brothers as the evil power-hungry-but-incompetent-rulers are a far cry from Joaquin Phoenix’s brilliant and emotionally-nuanced portrayal of the evil Commodus. Lucilla, as the un-empowered princess, is a shadow of what the same actress played in the original story. And Denzel Washington, as the conniving Macrinus is an absolute damp squib. Only Pedro Pascal, as General Acacius, gives a solid performance that makes you want to root for him, but it’s not enough to save the overall film.
Finally, the other appeal and one of the reasons we enjoyed Gladiator 1, was the no-holds-barred adrenaline rush of watching human combat in its most raw, ugly and violent form. We’d all be lying to ourselves if we didn’t acknowledge this appeal of the film, despite our high brow pretences of rooting for an Oscar winner! Again, Gladiator 2 fails at creating this impact, despite having so many fight sequences, all set to large screen Dolby music effect. The attacks are there but we don’t feel it, the blood is there but it doesn’t make us squeamish, the rage is there but it doesn’t provoke us, the fight-choreography is there but it doesn’t move us, the arms and ammunition are there but it doesn’t deter us, the horrifying bad guys and their beasts are there, but it doesn’t scare us. As a result, we are left watching a series of what feels like inconsequential fights, leading to an inevitable ending, like we would a WWE match or like we watched Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson. Meh!
As we walk out of the theatre, we remember that actually this is not the first time that Ridley Scott has let us down. The memories of Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are still recent enough to know what this disappointment feels like. And in any case, we are getting used to our heroes and icons letting us down, so just one more on that list. No big deal. And not that it’s going to stop us from coming back and rooting for more, and continuing to believe in the power of good cinema. And in geniuses like Ridley Scott. Just like with everything else in the world, we will keep showing up again and again and again… Till the next time Mr. Scott.
No comments:
Post a Comment