Film Review: Gladiator II

By Mia Townsend, Year 3 English

Almost 25 years after the release of Gladiator starring Russell Crowe, Gladiator II has made its way into cinemas across the globe. In the newest film, we see plenty of familiar faces, including Pedro Pascal, Paul Mescal, Joseph Quinn, Denzel Washington and Matt Lucas (a University of Bristol alumni!). 

In fact, to celebrate the release of the film, Rome’s Colosseum is due to hold gladiator fights for the first time in 1600 years (to a lucky few Airbnb guests) on May 7 and 8 2025.

Gladiator was already a huge success, with the film grossing $465.5 million worldwide, winning five Academy Awards and becoming the second highest-grossing film of 2000. So, how does Gladiator II compare?

There were clear parallels and references between the first and second film, which can be seen through similar actions portrayed by both protagonists: the opening scene presenting an idyllic, pastoral life; exile to North Africa as a child; the fistful of Colosseum dirt before the fight – the list goes on. However, I would argue that these repetitions are not unthoughtful or that they lack originality, as some critics might say. For example, Kyle Smith from The Wall Street Journal states, ‘Every element in Gladiator II says, ‘How about we try the same things as we did before, only not as well?”. I would argue otherwise. I found that the evident references to the original Gladiator were well apt and created a sense of reminiscence towards the first film, while also foreshadowing the protagonist's true identity (watch the film to find out what I mean!) 

There was plenty of action throughout the film, leaving audiences in suspense throughout. Many of the plot twists I didn’t see coming and there were, in my opinion, a few red herrings about in the film. I would rate the actual storyline a solid 10/10.

What about special effects? One thing that I find incredibly jarring is when you can clearly see that the special effects are unrealistic. For a film with a whopping budget of $300 million, you would have thought that more attention to detail would have gone into making the shark scene look more realistic. The sharks looked as though the crew had designed them way back in 2000, forgotten about them, and then kept them in the final cut. What annoyed me more was that all of the other special effects seemed perfect, aside from the animals. 

The historical accuracy of the film has also been examined. Despite films being made to entertain rather than to provide historical accuracy, Alexander Mariotti was the person to make sure that history aligned with the film as much as possible. 

Appointed as the historical script consultant for the movie, it was Moretti’s job to inform the director, Sir Ridley Scott, of any historical inaccuracies which might slip into the storytelling. However, many historians have jumped to pointing out the inaccuracies stating that ‘the architecture was wrong’ or ‘Romans didn’t have newspapers to read’. So, what are some bizarre things in the film which are surprisingly true? 

Let’s start with animals. Baboons and rhinoceroses were displayed in the Colosseum, however, they were not put up against gladiators. However, they did fight lions, panthers and elephants. 

And the naval battle in the Colosseum? This is, in fact, true – sort of.  Mock naval battles occurred, called naumachia, and water was put in amphitheatres and ships brought in. However, these amphitheatres would only be filled with a small amount of water and not nearly enough to have sharks swimming around in (it seems, as I write this review, I have a huge problem with the sharks in this film).

Also, the fights were not nearly as brutal as how the films portray them to be, with only one out of ten fights resulting in death. There were referees to separate people and the fights usually stopped after injury. Moreover, gladiators were not just prisoners of war or enslaved people, and it is estimated that forty per cent of gladiators were free men who became gladiators to make money.

Overall, despite some bad criticism and historical inaccuracies, this is one of the best films I’ve watched in a very long time. I was constantly on the edge of my seat and totally invested in the plot the entire way through. This is certainly not a film to miss.