Gladiator 1 vs Gladiator 2
advertisement
VOICE OVER: Rebecca Brayton
WRITTEN BY: Cameron Johnson
Two epic films, one legendary franchise! Join us as we compare Ridley Scott's original "Gladiator" and its long-awaited sequel, breaking down the story, characters, historical accuracy, and cinematic spectacle in an epic battle of gladiatorial proportions. Our analysis covers the performances of Russell Crowe and Paul Mescal, the directorial evolution of Ridley Scott, and how these films stack up against each other in seven intense rounds of comparison! Which Gladiator movie is better? Chime in!
Gladiator vs. Gladiator 2
Welcome to WatchMojo, and today we’re stepping into the arena to test the skills of Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” and the sequel 24 years in the making. Stand ready for spoilers ahead.
In the summer of 2000, the world was entertained. After a difficult production under legendary director Ridley Scott, “Gladiator” emerged as a colossal critical and box office success. It helped supercharge the Hollywood epic for the 21st century and won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Needless to say, there were soon talks of a sequel.
After story and production conflicts, studio politics, and Scott’s heavy workload, “Gladiator II” was finally realized in 2024. Many say that it was worth the wait. Others saw it as a letdown. Really, this discourse is similar to that surrounding the legacy of the original film. Some believe it to be an unqualified prestige picture, especially given its historical liberties, screenplay and melodrama. It’s surely beloved enough for “Gladiator II” to be a commercial hit. But how does this more spectacle-driven blockbuster measure up to a debatable classic?
Round 1: The Story
Set in the Roman Empire, “Gladiator” follows a great general-turned-widowed fugitive who becomes embroiled in bloodsport and conspiracy. “Gladiator II” is about… a great general-turned-widowed fugitive… Well, you see where this is going. This sequel’s setup has been criticized as too similar to the original’s. That is, the emotional foundation for the epic story feels too much like a lazy, contrived retread. The narrative becomes more distinct as the politics and plot twists unfurl.
Of course, the first “Gladiator” was hardly an original concept. The motivations of revenge, honor and even love make for the most standard of Hollywood melodrama. This sentimentality stands in contrast with the more procedural “Gladiator II,” but both films carry a noble, if superficial promotion of liberty and democracy. The message does feel more impactful in the dramatic scope of the first film, which tells its familiar story with care and breadth. The sequel may be too cynical to attempt such sentimentality, while yielding few fresh ideas as both a sequel and an epic.
Gladiator: 1 / Gladiator II: 0
Round 2: The Champions
Whatever their tonal differences, both “Gladiator” films are classical hero arcs. Maximus Decimus Meridius raised the bar on the screen as much as he did in the Colosseum. Once poised to restore the Roman Republic, he is betrayed by his friend Commodus and framed for regicide. The subsequent loss of his family and his freedom presents an action hero steeped in despair. Refreshing as this is, some believe that Maximus’s tragedy is expressed more through brooding than intimate development. “Gladiator II” features a more grandiose protagonist, to a fault.
Introduced in battle against the Roman army, Hanno[a] is a more resolute revolutionary than Maximus. The revelation that he is really Lucius Verus Aurelius, runaway heir to the Roman throne, is so predictable that the film’s promotions barely hide it. The prioritization of Lucius's development over Hanno’s is evidenced by the dwindling attention to his grief as a widower. Maximus may be a maudlin tragic figure, but he's consistent. The perfectly cast Russell Crowe won an Oscar for mingling physical prowess with equally renowned emotional depth. Of course, typically understated dramatic actor Paul Mescal was praised for his intensity in his action debut. “Gladiator II” is said to be an important display of his range and bankability as a movie star. Certainly, both Maximus and Lucius are skilled combatants with sympathetic motivations. The former just has a richer emotional factor to make him an icon.
Gladiator: 2 / Gladiator II: 0
Round 3: The Spectators
No less important than the heroes in both films are the supporting characters. At the heart of their political machinations is Lucilla, played by Connie Nielsen. Marcus Aurelius's daughter is the love interest in the first “Gladiator,” supporting Maximus’s convictions and Commodus’s cruelty. She's still adept enough in her scheme to overthrow her brother to feel like more than a plot device. Her reunion with son Lucius also drives much of the emotion in “Gladiator II.” In the end, though, audiences were split by Lucilla’s spectacular execution in the Colosseum.
The series’ fictionalization has been particularly polarizing with regard to the Roman emperors. Marcus Aurelius’s fictitious death at his disinherited son’s hands crudely establishes Commodus’s tyrannical evil. He might have been a flat antagonist if not for Joaquin Phoenix’s chilling, Oscar-nominated performance. “Gladiator II’s” Caracalla and Geta[b] are even more over-the-top, but the twin emperors are really more campy villains. The true antagonist, as it turns out, is slave-turned-power player Macrinus. He’s initially a counterpart to Antonius Proximo, a gladiator trainer and the ideal final role for legendary actor Oliver Reed. But his eventual disillusionment is effectively represented in “Gladiator II” by Pedro Pascal’s Acacius, a mighty general tired of war and corrupt leadership. Meanwhile, the conniving Macrinus flourishes on Denzel Washington’s charisma and a compromising heel turn. Whatever the critics think of “Gladiator II” as a whole, everyone agrees that Washington steals the show.
Gladiator: 2 / Gladiator II: 1
Round 4: The History
It's clear at this point that historical accuracy isn’t the top concern for the “Gladiator” saga. One myth perpetuated by gladiator fiction in general speaks to this series’ intentions. Due to their expense and entertainment value, gladiators very rarely fought to the death. Ridley Scott and company used that misconception to expand drama and explore deeply human themes. This at least supported an accurate representation of the Roman social structure behind the movies’ grander drama. “Gladiator II” went further with the Empire’s business, high society and political instability. Perhaps this was meant to make up for the further exaggeration of gladiator combat, in the frivolous interest of action.
The first “Gladiator's” exhaustive research went toward using real elements of the Roman Empire to legitimize fictional worldbuilding. It's a prime example of the difference between liberties and inaccuracies in a period piece. Still, selective authenticity invites scrutiny of where it falls short, and where the liberties go too far. “Gladiator II,” on the other hand, had the audacity to feature coffee and newspapers in the late 2nd century. Equally baffling is the opening conquest of Numibia[c], which was annexed into Rome in 46 BC. Of course, the most talked-about liberties were in the use of animals in the gladiator games. While there is evidence that a more watertight construction of the Colosseum was flooded to recreate naval combat, importing sharks would have been impossible. “Gladiator II” makes an art of anachronism, reveling in its fictionalized narrative more than the first film. This makes it hard to compare the historical representations, though authenticity is the real loser either way.
Gladiator: 3 / Gladiator II: 1
Round 5: The Spectacle
If the “Gladiator” films can't completely replicate history, they certainly bring their own world to life. The first installment was the second of many collaborations between director Ridley Scott and art director Arthur Max[d]. Their sprawling vision of the Roman Empire richly married authentic period detail with unique designs and CGI enhancements. More than 20 years later, Max’s work on “Gladiator II” is naturally richer. It’s still more attentive to the realistic grit of a mighty city under pressure. At the same time, it's less memorably artful. That every shot is still astonishing sets the core aesthetic difference between the two films.
One of the most heated clashes, of course, is over the movies’ action. As poetic as “Gladiator” was, its immense battles and savage combat were peak Hollywood spectacle. However, some say that Ridley Scott’s close filming, rapid editing and spotty slow-mo get too stylized. The action remains stellar in “Gladiator,” but the sequel has way more of it. It also has more accessible direction, rawer violence and imaginative concepts. Stuff like obviously CG baboons and tamed rhinos certainly tell audiences to take it all with a grain of salt. Though emotional weight is lighter, Scott has clearly matured with large-scale action through the years. But has he matured as a storyteller?
Gladiator: 3 / Gladiator II: 2
Round 6: The Director
Ridley Scott may not have personally won an Oscar for “Gladiator,” but it made him a leading figure in large-scale drama. Some say “Gladiator II” confirms that his genuine prestige has declined with the escalation of his productions. The predecessor was often underestimastated in its pacing and high-concept in emotion. This was enhanced by John Matthieson[e]’s beautiful cinematography and one of Hans Zimmer’s greatest scores. In comparison, “Gladiator II” is more focused on upping the spectacle. It’s bigger and busier, with brisk pacing even in the political scenes. And while Matthieson’s photography and Harry Gregson-Williams’s score are stunning, they lack sentiment.
“Gladiator II” is undoubtedly another thrilling testament to Scott’s ingenuity as an artist. But as a humbler epic, “Gladiator” overcame notorious production difficulties to combine spectacle with a poetic tone. The more cynical sequel favors politics over pathos to embolden its action. It’s worth noting that most of the additional 16 minutes in the original’s director’s cut involves more character moments and worldbuilding. Scott, a leading proponent of alternative cuts, claimed in an interview with Collider that he’s content with the theatrical version of “Gladiator II.” However, he later told The Hollywood Reporter that he may release an almost four-hour-long cut. An hour-and-a-half of additional material would certainly mean more nuanced storytelling. But the central philosophy in how Scott directs the film differs from the original.
Gladiator: 4 / Gladiator II: 2
Round 7: The Roar of the Crowd
Complicated drama and massive entertainment made the first “Gladiator” an ideal champion for industry accolades. Most critics agree that the sequel has lost that heart, but differ heavily on the quality of the film itself. “Gladiator II” is Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and has a solid CinemaScore of B. The audience turnout was also strong enough to earn a Golden Globe nomination for Cinematic and Box Office Achievement. On the other hand, the first film earned a CinemaScore of A and grossed almost $500 million against a third of its sequel’s budget.
And yet, “Gladiator” still has its share of critics. Roger Ebert gave it a measly two stars, slamming its technical aspects and dreary tone. Esquire ranked it among the most overrated Best Picture winners in Oscar history. The fact is that the film is generally regarded as a classic, if not a masterpiece. Few are saying that about “Gladiator II.” The harshest critics dismiss it as an unnecessary sequel that could corrupt its predecessor’s legacy. Otherwise, it’s generally praised as top-notch entertainment with credible prestige. It’s sure to go down as a highlight of Ridley Scott’s filmography for these discussions and its sheer achievement. But outside of two decades of technical development, critics universally declare “Gladiator” superior to “Gladiator II.” Let’s see where their thumbs land for “Gladiator III.”
Gladiator: 5 / Gladiator II: 2
What is your judgment of the “Gladiator” films and their legacy? Let the crowd be heard in the comments.
oh-RAY-LEE-iss https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/1191203b-a8e4-4ee4-aa92-1c6f346c9480
[b]cara-CAL-uh / care-uh-CAL-uh https://youtu.be/Ci2zahNn7_s?si=q8xX_kDA8LYWmebD&t=771
GAY-tuh https://youtu.be/Ci2zahNn7_s?si=yT_XyDWcbbPGU2HT&t=1124
MACKRIN-iss movie 25:55
prock-SEE-moh https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/4426100c-23aa-4f01-bebc-65007407e252
https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/77710792-16c1-44cf-8d58-95963104ede8
uh-CAY-shuhs or uh-CAY-SHE-iss https://youtu.be/6q4vdtNnxMs?si=MORXZTpTG03L9lNB&t=32
[c]noo-MIDDY-uh https://www.dictionary.com/browse/numidia
[d]https://youtu.be/acD0aOUWd8Q?si=vDRd99RbbNwxjSAe&t=60
[e]https://youtu.be/_aInyrSe8do?si=4f6vYlCG2yYOZZyS
https://youtu.be/TYPojRh7Umg?si=UTsTb8kjUi1vuDgv&t=54
Welcome to WatchMojo, and today we’re stepping into the arena to test the skills of Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” and the sequel 24 years in the making. Stand ready for spoilers ahead.
In the summer of 2000, the world was entertained. After a difficult production under legendary director Ridley Scott, “Gladiator” emerged as a colossal critical and box office success. It helped supercharge the Hollywood epic for the 21st century and won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Needless to say, there were soon talks of a sequel.
After story and production conflicts, studio politics, and Scott’s heavy workload, “Gladiator II” was finally realized in 2024. Many say that it was worth the wait. Others saw it as a letdown. Really, this discourse is similar to that surrounding the legacy of the original film. Some believe it to be an unqualified prestige picture, especially given its historical liberties, screenplay and melodrama. It’s surely beloved enough for “Gladiator II” to be a commercial hit. But how does this more spectacle-driven blockbuster measure up to a debatable classic?
Round 1: The Story
Set in the Roman Empire, “Gladiator” follows a great general-turned-widowed fugitive who becomes embroiled in bloodsport and conspiracy. “Gladiator II” is about… a great general-turned-widowed fugitive… Well, you see where this is going. This sequel’s setup has been criticized as too similar to the original’s. That is, the emotional foundation for the epic story feels too much like a lazy, contrived retread. The narrative becomes more distinct as the politics and plot twists unfurl.
Of course, the first “Gladiator” was hardly an original concept. The motivations of revenge, honor and even love make for the most standard of Hollywood melodrama. This sentimentality stands in contrast with the more procedural “Gladiator II,” but both films carry a noble, if superficial promotion of liberty and democracy. The message does feel more impactful in the dramatic scope of the first film, which tells its familiar story with care and breadth. The sequel may be too cynical to attempt such sentimentality, while yielding few fresh ideas as both a sequel and an epic.
Gladiator: 1 / Gladiator II: 0
Round 2: The Champions
Whatever their tonal differences, both “Gladiator” films are classical hero arcs. Maximus Decimus Meridius raised the bar on the screen as much as he did in the Colosseum. Once poised to restore the Roman Republic, he is betrayed by his friend Commodus and framed for regicide. The subsequent loss of his family and his freedom presents an action hero steeped in despair. Refreshing as this is, some believe that Maximus’s tragedy is expressed more through brooding than intimate development. “Gladiator II” features a more grandiose protagonist, to a fault.
Introduced in battle against the Roman army, Hanno[a] is a more resolute revolutionary than Maximus. The revelation that he is really Lucius Verus Aurelius, runaway heir to the Roman throne, is so predictable that the film’s promotions barely hide it. The prioritization of Lucius's development over Hanno’s is evidenced by the dwindling attention to his grief as a widower. Maximus may be a maudlin tragic figure, but he's consistent. The perfectly cast Russell Crowe won an Oscar for mingling physical prowess with equally renowned emotional depth. Of course, typically understated dramatic actor Paul Mescal was praised for his intensity in his action debut. “Gladiator II” is said to be an important display of his range and bankability as a movie star. Certainly, both Maximus and Lucius are skilled combatants with sympathetic motivations. The former just has a richer emotional factor to make him an icon.
Gladiator: 2 / Gladiator II: 0
Round 3: The Spectators
No less important than the heroes in both films are the supporting characters. At the heart of their political machinations is Lucilla, played by Connie Nielsen. Marcus Aurelius's daughter is the love interest in the first “Gladiator,” supporting Maximus’s convictions and Commodus’s cruelty. She's still adept enough in her scheme to overthrow her brother to feel like more than a plot device. Her reunion with son Lucius also drives much of the emotion in “Gladiator II.” In the end, though, audiences were split by Lucilla’s spectacular execution in the Colosseum.
The series’ fictionalization has been particularly polarizing with regard to the Roman emperors. Marcus Aurelius’s fictitious death at his disinherited son’s hands crudely establishes Commodus’s tyrannical evil. He might have been a flat antagonist if not for Joaquin Phoenix’s chilling, Oscar-nominated performance. “Gladiator II’s” Caracalla and Geta[b] are even more over-the-top, but the twin emperors are really more campy villains. The true antagonist, as it turns out, is slave-turned-power player Macrinus. He’s initially a counterpart to Antonius Proximo, a gladiator trainer and the ideal final role for legendary actor Oliver Reed. But his eventual disillusionment is effectively represented in “Gladiator II” by Pedro Pascal’s Acacius, a mighty general tired of war and corrupt leadership. Meanwhile, the conniving Macrinus flourishes on Denzel Washington’s charisma and a compromising heel turn. Whatever the critics think of “Gladiator II” as a whole, everyone agrees that Washington steals the show.
Gladiator: 2 / Gladiator II: 1
Round 4: The History
It's clear at this point that historical accuracy isn’t the top concern for the “Gladiator” saga. One myth perpetuated by gladiator fiction in general speaks to this series’ intentions. Due to their expense and entertainment value, gladiators very rarely fought to the death. Ridley Scott and company used that misconception to expand drama and explore deeply human themes. This at least supported an accurate representation of the Roman social structure behind the movies’ grander drama. “Gladiator II” went further with the Empire’s business, high society and political instability. Perhaps this was meant to make up for the further exaggeration of gladiator combat, in the frivolous interest of action.
The first “Gladiator's” exhaustive research went toward using real elements of the Roman Empire to legitimize fictional worldbuilding. It's a prime example of the difference between liberties and inaccuracies in a period piece. Still, selective authenticity invites scrutiny of where it falls short, and where the liberties go too far. “Gladiator II,” on the other hand, had the audacity to feature coffee and newspapers in the late 2nd century. Equally baffling is the opening conquest of Numibia[c], which was annexed into Rome in 46 BC. Of course, the most talked-about liberties were in the use of animals in the gladiator games. While there is evidence that a more watertight construction of the Colosseum was flooded to recreate naval combat, importing sharks would have been impossible. “Gladiator II” makes an art of anachronism, reveling in its fictionalized narrative more than the first film. This makes it hard to compare the historical representations, though authenticity is the real loser either way.
Gladiator: 3 / Gladiator II: 1
Round 5: The Spectacle
If the “Gladiator” films can't completely replicate history, they certainly bring their own world to life. The first installment was the second of many collaborations between director Ridley Scott and art director Arthur Max[d]. Their sprawling vision of the Roman Empire richly married authentic period detail with unique designs and CGI enhancements. More than 20 years later, Max’s work on “Gladiator II” is naturally richer. It’s still more attentive to the realistic grit of a mighty city under pressure. At the same time, it's less memorably artful. That every shot is still astonishing sets the core aesthetic difference between the two films.
One of the most heated clashes, of course, is over the movies’ action. As poetic as “Gladiator” was, its immense battles and savage combat were peak Hollywood spectacle. However, some say that Ridley Scott’s close filming, rapid editing and spotty slow-mo get too stylized. The action remains stellar in “Gladiator,” but the sequel has way more of it. It also has more accessible direction, rawer violence and imaginative concepts. Stuff like obviously CG baboons and tamed rhinos certainly tell audiences to take it all with a grain of salt. Though emotional weight is lighter, Scott has clearly matured with large-scale action through the years. But has he matured as a storyteller?
Gladiator: 3 / Gladiator II: 2
Round 6: The Director
Ridley Scott may not have personally won an Oscar for “Gladiator,” but it made him a leading figure in large-scale drama. Some say “Gladiator II” confirms that his genuine prestige has declined with the escalation of his productions. The predecessor was often underestimastated in its pacing and high-concept in emotion. This was enhanced by John Matthieson[e]’s beautiful cinematography and one of Hans Zimmer’s greatest scores. In comparison, “Gladiator II” is more focused on upping the spectacle. It’s bigger and busier, with brisk pacing even in the political scenes. And while Matthieson’s photography and Harry Gregson-Williams’s score are stunning, they lack sentiment.
“Gladiator II” is undoubtedly another thrilling testament to Scott’s ingenuity as an artist. But as a humbler epic, “Gladiator” overcame notorious production difficulties to combine spectacle with a poetic tone. The more cynical sequel favors politics over pathos to embolden its action. It’s worth noting that most of the additional 16 minutes in the original’s director’s cut involves more character moments and worldbuilding. Scott, a leading proponent of alternative cuts, claimed in an interview with Collider that he’s content with the theatrical version of “Gladiator II.” However, he later told The Hollywood Reporter that he may release an almost four-hour-long cut. An hour-and-a-half of additional material would certainly mean more nuanced storytelling. But the central philosophy in how Scott directs the film differs from the original.
Gladiator: 4 / Gladiator II: 2
Round 7: The Roar of the Crowd
Complicated drama and massive entertainment made the first “Gladiator” an ideal champion for industry accolades. Most critics agree that the sequel has lost that heart, but differ heavily on the quality of the film itself. “Gladiator II” is Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and has a solid CinemaScore of B. The audience turnout was also strong enough to earn a Golden Globe nomination for Cinematic and Box Office Achievement. On the other hand, the first film earned a CinemaScore of A and grossed almost $500 million against a third of its sequel’s budget.
And yet, “Gladiator” still has its share of critics. Roger Ebert gave it a measly two stars, slamming its technical aspects and dreary tone. Esquire ranked it among the most overrated Best Picture winners in Oscar history. The fact is that the film is generally regarded as a classic, if not a masterpiece. Few are saying that about “Gladiator II.” The harshest critics dismiss it as an unnecessary sequel that could corrupt its predecessor’s legacy. Otherwise, it’s generally praised as top-notch entertainment with credible prestige. It’s sure to go down as a highlight of Ridley Scott’s filmography for these discussions and its sheer achievement. But outside of two decades of technical development, critics universally declare “Gladiator” superior to “Gladiator II.” Let’s see where their thumbs land for “Gladiator III.”
Gladiator: 5 / Gladiator II: 2
What is your judgment of the “Gladiator” films and their legacy? Let the crowd be heard in the comments.
[a]HAN-noh - movie @ 03:40
LOO-shiss VARE-uss https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/1031f5f3-99f3-4df8-a6e5-f416c4b969baoh-RAY-LEE-iss https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/1191203b-a8e4-4ee4-aa92-1c6f346c9480
[b]cara-CAL-uh / care-uh-CAL-uh https://youtu.be/Ci2zahNn7_s?si=q8xX_kDA8LYWmebD&t=771
GAY-tuh https://youtu.be/Ci2zahNn7_s?si=yT_XyDWcbbPGU2HT&t=1124
MACKRIN-iss movie 25:55
prock-SEE-moh https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/4426100c-23aa-4f01-bebc-65007407e252
https://www.yarn.co/yarn-clip/77710792-16c1-44cf-8d58-95963104ede8
uh-CAY-shuhs or uh-CAY-SHE-iss https://youtu.be/6q4vdtNnxMs?si=MORXZTpTG03L9lNB&t=32
[c]noo-MIDDY-uh https://www.dictionary.com/browse/numidia
[d]https://youtu.be/acD0aOUWd8Q?si=vDRd99RbbNwxjSAe&t=60
[e]https://youtu.be/_aInyrSe8do?si=4f6vYlCG2yYOZZyS
https://youtu.be/TYPojRh7Umg?si=UTsTb8kjUi1vuDgv&t=54
