Gladiator IIis being called “epic” and Paul Mescal “mesmerising” in the first reviews of the new Ridley Scott historical blockbuster.
The sequel to the Oscar winning 2000 film starring Russell Crowe, sees the nephew of Maximus, Lucius (Mescal) enter the collesseum after the Roman emperors, Geta and Caracalla conquer his home and force him into slavery.
The film, which did originally star Barry Keoghan and has seen Denzel Washington touted to be a major awards contender, has now been greeted to mostly positive reviews, with many critics praising the film for being fun.
For The Independent, Clarisse Loughrey called the film “pure camp” while also highlighting the impressive naval battle scene in the Colosseum, which historically happened, albeit without sharks.
In a four-star review for The Telegraph, Robbie Collin said that Washington’s “juicy role translates into pure pleasure for the audience,” adding that “Unfortunately he’s so good he rather eclipses the rest of the cast”.
In another four-star review, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw called the movie “gobsmacking” and “weirdly almost a next-gen remake” of the original.
“Gladiator is a hard act to follow but Sir Ridley Scott proves still to be a master working up a Roman orgy of excitement that proves a worthy successor in every way,” wrote Pete Hammond for Deadline.
Erik Anderson for Awards Watch said that “Paul Mescal is a worthy successor to the throne” while Tim Grieson in Screen International wrote: “Washington radiates a showman’s delight, relishing his character’s deviousness.”
There were some detractors, though, who weren’t so wowed by Scott’s latest effort.
In a two-star review for The Irish Times, Donald Clarke wrote: “The screenplay is mere scaffolding on which to mount endless samey – albeit delightfully disgusting – exercises in competitive viscera-letting.”
Kevin Maher of The Times called it “Scott’s most disappointing ‘legacy sequel’ since Prometheus “and posed the apt question: “Are you not entertained? No, not really.”
Meanwhile, Hannah Strong for Little White Lies accused the film of being “a case of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks,” adding that “this sequel lacks both the impact of its inspiration and the fresh ideas necessary to stand on its own two feet".
Prior to the release of the movie, Dr Shadi Bartsch, a classics professor at the University of Chicago with degrees from Princeton, Harvard and UC Berkeley told criticised the aforementioned naval battle scene, telling the The Hollywood Reporter it is “total Hollywood bulls***.”
“I don’t think Romans knew what a shark was,” added Dr Bartsch, although she did acknowledge that the Romans really did fill the Colosseum with water in order to hold naval battles in the arena.
A more blatant anachronism is the scene in which a Roman noble is depicted reading a morning newspaper while sipping tea in a cafe. The printing press would not be invented for another 1,200 years.
“They did have daily news – Acta Diuma – but it was carved and placed at certain locations,” explained Dr Bartsch. “You had to go to it, you couldn’t hold it at a cafe. Also, they didn’t have cafes!”
