When it comes to sequels, whether it’s a movie, TV show, book, or video game, there’s a high probability it’s not as good as the original. Coincidentally, I’ve actually watched a lot of sequels so far this year: Moana 2, The Accountant 2, Another Simple Favor, and finally, Gladiator II. None of these lived up to the hype of the first film. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of sequels that are just as good, if not better, than the first: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, and The Dark Knight, just to name a few. But, in my opinion, most sequels from the past 5-10 years just aren’t hitting the mark.
Since Gladiator II prompted me to write a blog about sequels, I’m going to use this movie as my primary example throughout this update. First of all, why was this movie even made? The obvious answer, of course, is money. The original movie came out 25 years ago and it won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor for Russell Crowe. Gladiator II released last year and won…0 Academy Awards. In fact, it was only nominated for 1 Oscar for Best Costume Design. The first film received 12 nominations. I don’t put a lot of stock into the Academy Awards as much as I had in the past, but it says a lot about the movie.
And Gladiator II isn’t even the first film to release a sequel many years after the original. There have been a lot of movies lately that have done this: Top Gun: Maverick, Twisters, Bladerunner 2049, Tron: Legacy, and Independence Day: Resurgence. There are definitely more but you can just Google it like I did. Now, some of these movies I just mentioned are actually decent sequels that expand upon the original film. That’s what sequels are supposed to do, right? That’s the goal, at least.
When you’re making a sequel 20+ years later, you’re banking on your ticket sales to be fueled by nostalgia. When Top Gun: Maverick released a few years ago, it was one of the biggest movies that released that year and made shitloads of money. The first film is an 80’s classic, so of course people lined up to see this movie. What surprised me most was not how much money it made, but that the film itself was actually very well done and pushed the narrative forward. I still haven’t seen it myself, but that seemed to be the general consensus of audiences and critics alike.
Gladiator II, on the other hand, was basically just a remake of the original film. The only tie-in to the first movie is that the main character is the son of Maximus (Russell Crowe). Oh and Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) returns from the original movie. Otherwise, the entire second movie is basically the same story as the first. Some dude gets taken into slavery and forced to fight in the arena and blah blah blah, we all know the rest. You could say the same about Tron: Legacy, that it was basically a way to do a reboot or remake without having to restart the entire narrative, and still make it look fresh enough for a new generation of audiences.
I just felt like Gladiator II was too similar to the first film. The villains in this movie are twin co-emperors of Rome and, not coincidentally, similar to Joaquin Phoenix’s character from the original. They are flamboyant, quick to anger, and devious. If those villains weren’t enough for you, then here’s another villain in the form of Denzel Washington’s Macrinus. His character first purchases Lucius (Maximus’ son) and forces him to train as a gladiator. However, Macrinus has plans of his own, seeking power to overthrow the current leaders in favor of himself. You could say that Denzel is the real villain in this film. Despite his excellent performance, it wasn’t enough to keep me interested. Also, everyone’s favorite human being, Pedro Pascal, was in this movie and as much as I love him, even his performance wasn’t enough for me to enjoy this film.
Don’t get me wrong, the movie itself was entertaining. The gladiator battles were more intense and brutal this time around thanks to technology. The cinematography was incredible. Lots of great shots and lots of great visual effects. The writing, though, just didn’t do it for me and other than Denzel, the acting overall was mediocre. I was just reading that a third movie is in the works. I have a feeling it’s going to bomb hard this time around. But what do I know? I just write blogs.
Unfortunately, this trend in Hollywood will continue as long as the power of nostalgia is strong. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, but there has to be another reason to revisit a beloved story to warrant a sequel years, sometimes decades, later. At least with a remake or reboot, you could tell a completely new story so it seems like it’s new and different. And I have no problem with movies being remade for a newer generation. That’s part of the reason why Disney is remaking all their classic animated films into live-action. Most people feel, myself included, that sometimes it’s too soon for a film to be remade. Not only does Moana have an animated sequel, but they’re remaking the original movie in live-action. Just like anything, sometimes too much of something isn’t always a good thing.
Blogservations 