Gladiator II: battles, baboons, Mescal and Denzel – discuss with spoilers | Gladiator II

Tfour years later, Ridley Scott’s belated follow-up to his biggest critical success is finally on the big screen. How does it compare to the first film? Can Paul Mescal convince? Is Denzel Washington stealing the show? And what about that rhinoceros? Here is the place to remove it all.

Can it be compared?

Paul Mescal has said he is doing something different with Russell Crowe, who plays his father. Is that difference something you embrace or are uneasy about? Washington’s character says that rage flows from Lucius “like milk from a whore’s teat”. Did it translate rage effectively?

Some critics have found the film’s structure to be a little too similar to the original: was that a problem for you? Or is a retread what many audiences actually want?

Denzel, Pedro … and the rest

Washington has garnered the most Oscar buzz for his role as a ruthless power broker. Is it deserved? Who else would you single out for praise or shame? Were Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger’s crazy twins a little too Joaquin Phoenix-lite? Was Pedro Pascal given enough airtime? And wasn’t it great to see so much airtime for Tim McInnerny?

AI, CGI, etc

Reviewers have enjoyed the rendition of the baboons in the crosshairs, but how did you think they compared to the tumbling animatronic rhinoceros, views of ancient Italy, generous beheadings and all the sharks?

This is about survival!

Crowe once summed up Gladiator’s plot thus: “We have, like, the massive fight sequence at the beginning of the movie, and it’s followed by a series of massive fight sequences that build up to a massive fight sequence, so we can end up in a fight sequence that even I would describe as massive.” Which of the massive battles this time around was the best – and which fell flat?

Death becomes them

There are some remarkably creative and squelchy ends encountered in Gladiator II. Did you see the dozen arrows coming? And was there a touch of Monty Python to the run of the last reel?

‘Sorry mate, were you there? No? Well shut up’

Scott’s robust responses to historians who have questioned the accuracy of his period efforts may make you think twice before wondering if they really had newspapers in ancient Rome (the Romans) or if sharks swam in The Coliseum, or whether syphilis was a thing. then. But come and have a go if you think you’re tough enough.

Little women

The press notes for the film pile on generously about how Connie Nielsen’s character is the smartest, most sensible, smartest of the lot. But how are the women here – both of them – treated? And how much oedipal friction did you pick up between Mescal and his mother?

A kiss is just a kiss

Pre-release, it was the impromptu smacker Mescal pours Pascal in the ring that grabbed the headlines. As the film arrives, it’s Washington’s revelation of a cut-off gay clincher that has generated heat. Given its relative chastity, how sex-positive was the film?

‘The people have not seen hope for many years’

How does the film – if at all – speak to the current political landscape? Does it show that we underestimate wealthy men with an ear for power at our peril? How gaping are the gates of hell right now? How smooth is that descent?

The sequel

Scott is working it out now and says it will be like The Godfather Part II where Lucius is less than happy about the power and responsibility he’s been given. What direction would you like to see the film go in?

Were you entertained?

How does the film measure up not just to the original, but to the rest of the films currently on offer? Is it a welcome return or a dusty old relic? Did you and the rest of the audience want more or gave it the imperial thumbs down?