Welcome to another episode of Action Addicts by the Austin Action Fest and Market. It’s a podcast, pretty much action, and you know, we get into the business, the craft of filmmaking sometimes, but it’s mostly about that action. Here today, obviously, Ben Redic aka Lord Violence aka the Violence Conductor, and we have special guests, old school podcast partner, Ballistic Blade, partner of mine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re drinking out of the chalice of truth. We’re not here to tear down “Gladiator”; we’re not here to gladiate “Gladiator.”
Plot and Characters: All my opinions are coming from not having seen the first movie, so let’s start with that. The plot of “Gladiator 2”? Well, the reviews are all over the place, but the movie’s not doing as well as you’d expect for a Denzel Washington film. People aren’t watching it, which is surprising. The narrative is supposed to continue the legacy of the first film, but it feels more like a cash grab than a worthy sequel. The characters lack the charisma, the inspiration, the leadership of the original. Denzel’s character, while fine, isn’t the highlight he could have been due to subpar writing and a lackluster script.
Acting: Denzel Washington is, as always, a fine actor, but even he can’t save this film from mediocrity. The dialogue is expository, uninspiring, and the characters feel like they’re more talking at you than telling a story. The supporting cast doesn’t have the same impact as the original, and the new characters introduced don’t capture the audience’s heart or imagination.
Action: The action sequences are the movie’s saving grace. They’re expansive, brutal, and somewhat entertaining. There’s a lot of spectacle, but it’s like they put all their effort into the CGI fights and forgot about the rest. The choreography is there, but it doesn’t feel integrated into the story or character development. It’s action for action’s sake.
Criticism: The movie suffers from what I call the “Jurassic Park Effect.” Everything that made the first “Gladiator” memorable is already shown, so the sequel feels like a rehash without the awe. There’s too much explanation, too many rats (literally), and not enough substance. The plot is predictable, and the emotional beats don’t land because there’s no connection to the characters.
Rating: On a scale of 5 blades, I’m giving “Gladiator 2” a 2 out of 5. That means you made a movie, but it’s got a bunch of technical issues and isn’t something I’d want to watch again. It’s not worth the price of admission unless you’re looking for a laugh at how it compares to the original.
Conclusion: “Gladiator 2” had the potential to be something special, with a cast like Denzel and a director like Ridley Scott, but it falls flat. It’s not a terrible movie, but it’s certainly not good. If you’re going to make a sequel, you need to either match or surpass the original’s energy and storytelling, and this one doesn’t even come close. It’s a lesson in what not to do when you’ve got a legacy to uphold.
If you’re a filmmaker, learn from this. Don’t make movies just to ride on past glories; bring something new, something impactful to the table. And remember, we’re here to help you grow, not just to mock. We love movies, and we want them to be great.
That’s all we’ve got for “Gladiator 2.” Check out our socials, support indie filmmakers, and we’ll catch you on the next one. The Violence Conductor, signing off.