Nebraska Journal Herald Entertainment

Following the epic triumph of the movie classic "Gladiator," "Gladiator 2" was eagerly awaited to extend the saga's legacy. However, it delivers what can only be described as an after-school special version of the original. The first film enthralled audiences with its gripping narrative, the raw, intense performance by Russell Crowe as Maximus, and the visually stunning portrayal of ancient Rome. In stark contrast, "Gladiator 2" falls prey to the quintessential sequel pitfalls: forced continuity, a lack of substance, and a clear decline in quality.

Paul Mescal's portrayal of Lucius lacks the commanding presence expected of a gladiator hero, his performance better suited to the themes of an after-school special, exploring the trials and tribulations of puberty, rather than the action and leadership demanded by a gladiator epic. The supporting cast, notably with Denzel Washington's amateurish depiction of Macrinus, seems more an attempt to broaden the audience through the inclusion of a black Hollywood star than a genuine contribution to the story's depth. Here, historical accuracy is sidelined for the sake of contemporary inclusivity, leading to a disjointed narrative pace that attempts to pack too much into a storyline, resulting in a feel that's both rushed and overextended.

Moreover, the CGI in "Gladiator 2" fails to impress, instead cheapening the spectacle. Battle scenes featuring creatures like baboons and sharks are more reminiscent of video game graphics than cinematic realism, stripping away the awe that the original's practical effects provided. "Gladiator 2" strives to recapture the magic of its predecessor but instead offers a masterclass in sequel missteps, transforming what was meant to be an epic continuation into a cinematic after-school special.

"Gladiator 2" serves up the quintessential sequel clichés, turning the epic narrative of its predecessor into an "After School Special" experience. While the original "Gladiator" was a storytelling and intensity masterpiece, its sequel showcases all the typical sequel pitfalls: a decline in quality, forced continuity that feels shoehorned in, grandeur that lacks substance, casting choices that miss the mark, and pacing that oscillates between sluggish and rushed. This follow-up acts as a case study in how not to extend a classic, morphing potential epic into a lesson in modern sequel-making gone awry.

Where "Gladiator" shone with deep characters and a coherent plot, "Gladiator 2" falls flat, unable to recapture the original's allure, leaving fans with a narrative that feels hollow and uninspiring. It's a vivid demonstration of how sequels can fail to live up to their predecessors.

The sequel struggles with forced continuity, attempting to cling to the legacy of the first film by awkwardly forcing new storylines around established events, resulting in a plot more perforated than a coliseum floor. It's a sequel that tries to link back but ends up adrift from its epic origins.

"Gladiator 2" battles switch erratically between poor CGI and amateur choreography, sometimes within the same scene, diminishing the spectacle to a disjointed, video game-like quality. The ambition for epic grandeur is lost, turning potential cinematic art into chaotic, amateurish moments.

Casting in "Gladiator 2" is a clear misfire, with Paul Mescal not embodying the essence of a gladiator leader, and the supporting roles seeming more about ticking diversity boxes than enhancing the story, thus diluting the film's impact.

The film's pacing epitomizes sequel syndrome, dragging in parts while rushing through others, attempting to fit too much into an already lengthy runtime, which results in a narrative that feels both overcrowded and underdeveloped. "Gladiator 2" encapsulates the classic sequel issues of trying to do too much, only to deliver far too little.

Paul Mescal's portrayal of Lucius in "Gladiator 2" merits numerous well-earned negative critiques. To begin, He was miscast, missing the presence and charisma essential for a gladiator hero, qualities that Russell Crowe brought to Maximus in the original film. Mescal did not convincingly embody the role, appearing more suited for characters with introspective, prepubescent emotional issues rather than the external action and leadership demanded by a gladiator epic. He lacked of emotional depth, with his character seeming too passive until the plot necessitated a change, not fully capturing the rage or evolution from reluctant fighter to vengeful warrior.

Comparisons to Crowe were inevitable, and Mescal's Lucius did not measure up to the original iconic performance, lacking the same leadership quality or draw. In group scenes, Mescal struggled to command attention or lead the narrative effectively; his lacking performance was more noted in intimate, one-on-one interactions. Lastly, he did not exude the imposing presence needed for a gladiator, particularly in scenes meant to highlight his combat skills or leadership. Overall, Mescal's casting did not come close to meeting the high expectations set by the first film's lead.

Denzel Washington's portrayal of Macrinus in "Gladiator 2" draws significant criticism for several reasons. His casting is an example of forced diversity, where historical accuracy took a backseat to modern inclusivity, making his presence in ancient Rome particularly ridiculous. Washington, known for his phony intensity and over-the-top roles, appeared out of his element in this historical epic, exposing his acting as amateurish without relying on the familiar trope of the 'angry black man.' His choice to use his natural New York accent instead of adopting one appropriate for the period and region is a point of contention, further undermining the film's authenticity as this vocal decision was at odds with the character's supposed North African origins. Additionally, his role should be critiqued for playing into culturally progressive biased stereotypes, casting him as the "cunning political strategist," which was a forced and apparent narrative element.

In "Gladiator 2," the supporting cast's acting often reeked of amateur theater, more suited to school plays than the gritty reality of a gladiator epic. The film's desperate attempt to squeeze in diversity, particularly casting black actors, felt like a checklist rather than an enhancement to the story. Black characters were portrayed as great warriors and wise men, while Persians were depicted with saintly common sense and good hearts, all for modern appeal rather than historical accuracy. The race-swapping lacked integrity, turning supporting roles into diversity placeholders rather than authentic characters. Their performances lacked the depth and audience connection needed, leading to a disjointed presence where they seemed to question their own place in a gladiator movie.

"Gladiator 2" disappointed with its CGI and narrative depth. With a runtime of 2 hours and 28 minutes, just 7 minutes less than the original "Gladiator's" 2 hours and 35 minutes, it felt like a waste. The original was well worth its length with its engaging story and characters, but the sequel's duration only amplified its flaws.

The CGI was particularly criticized, especially in scenes with animals like baboons and sharks, which looked more like video game graphics than cinema. The CGI baboons were likened to "evil little CGI aliens," and the rhino didn't blend with Rome's setting, breaking immersion. This reliance on digital effects stripped the gladiatorial battles of their visceral impact, turning them into mere spectacle.

The film prioritized visual spectacle over CGI quality, which compromised its historical authenticity. With an excessively long runtime, the film should have provided depth, but instead, it resembled an after-school special, humorously more suited to a 30-minute slot than its extended cinematic length. The disjointed experience was further exacerbated by the poor integration of CGI with the movie's physical world.

Gladiator 2 has transformed from the epic saga of its forebear into what can only be described as the after-school special version of "Gladiator." This sequel encapsulates every stereotypical problem plaguing follow-ups: it suffers from forced continuity, trying to connect dots that don’t align with the original's rich tapestry. The narrative feels contrived, with character arcs bending awkwardly around past events, creating more plot holes than a gladiator's net.

Paul Mescal's portrayal of Lucius is a stark contrast to Russell Crowe's Maximus, lacking the necessary depth and presence for a gladiator hero, turning the character into a lesson in passivity rather than action. Denzel Washington's Macrinus feels like a diversity checkbox, his performance out of sync with the historical setting, more akin to a modern-day moral tale than an authentic depiction of ancient Rome. The supporting cast furthers this after-school special vibe, with characters that seem more focused on teaching modern lessons than enriching the story, their diversity appearing skin-deep rather than integral to the plot.

The film's pacing is erratic, with scenes that drag followed by rushed plot points, indicative of a sequel trying too hard to fit in too much. The CGI, meant to dazzle, instead feels like a cheap trick from a special effects lesson, with creatures that look more at home in a video game than a cinematic epic.

In essence, "Gladiator 2" has traded the original's profound storytelling for a superficial, moralistic narrative, embodying the after-school special presentation where the emphasis is on contemporary lessons rather than historical authenticity or cinematic excellence. It's a sequel that not only fails to live up to its predecessor but also serves as a cautionary tale of how not to expand a beloved story.