How ‘Gladiator II’ Rejected Masculinity
By MIKALE OLSON
"Are you not entertained?” roared Maximus to the crowd in the original “Gladiator,” bloodied, furious, and standing victorious in the sand. Back in 2000, it was a challenge — to the Colosseum crowd, yes, but also to us as an audience. And we were entertained. Oh, were we entertained.
But now, nearly 25 years later, Ridley Scott is back, and “Gladiator II” just stumbled into theaters like a half-drunk tribute act trying to sing a song they barely remember. Except this time, the answer to Maximus’ iconic question is a resounding no.
“Gladiator II” isn’t just a bad sequel. It’s a butchered, modernized reimagining, sacrificing everything that made the first movie great on the altar of Hollywood’s woke checklist.
A Masterpiece of Grit and Glory
The first “Gladiator” was lightning in a bottle. From the opening battle in Germania to Maximus’ final stand in the Colosseum, it was raw, unapologetic, and entirely masculine. It wasn’t perfect, but it didn’t need to be, featuring themes that struck deep: loyalty, sacrifice, manhood, and the power of honor.
Maximus Decimus Meridius wasn’t just a gladiator — he was a soldier who fought for Rome, a father avenging his family, and a man standing against corruption. His journey was brutal, but it was deeply human. Who can forget his haunting line, “What we do in life echoes in eternity?”
The original “Gladiator” showed us men at their best and worst. Maximus’ strength wasn’t just in his sword — it was in his resolve, his integrity, his mission. And Commodus? He was the perfect foil. Cowardly, effeminate, insecure, and consumed by a lust for power. He showed us what happens when masculinity turns on itself. The original “Gladiator” didn’t just celebrate masculinity — it warned against its rejection.
Then Came ‘Gladiator II’
From the opening moments, in modern Hollywood fashion, “Gladiator II” makes it clear it wants nothing to do with the legacy of the original. The first live-action scene? Our new protagonist — Lucius — being scolded by his wife for not being “gentle enough.”
You read that right. “Gentle enough.”
This is the man who’s supposed to carry the torch lit by Maximus, the man who defied an emperor and inspired an empire? Instead of a general roaring, “At my signal, unleash hell,” we get a guy apologizing to his wife — who’s also a soldier, and a better one than Lucius (because, of course) — for being slightly too aggressive while plowing the fields.
Masculinity? What’s That?
Maximus embodied masculinity in the highest order. Even his enemies respected him for it. In “Gladiator II,” however, masculinity is treated like a bad joke. Pedro Pascal’s character, General Acacius, is ashamed of winning a battle — because effeminate Hollywood has decided that strength and victory are “problematic.”
Even Lucius’ revenge arc is a pale imitation of Maximus’. In the original, Maximus was betrayed by Commodus, who ordered his family’s execution. Every step of his journey — every swing of his sword — was fueled by love and justice.
In the sequel, Lucius is avenging his wife, who died in battle. She didn’t die at home, defenseless. She wasn’t a victim. No, she died on the battlefield because Lucius inexplicably thought it was a good idea to bring her into combat. Her death isn’t tragic — it’s absurd, and it’s Lucius’ fault.
Sand, Blood, and … Dirt?
One of the most memorable things about the original “Gladiator” was its gritty realism, akin to the famous “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The battles felt chaotic and brutal, with swords clanging and blood splattering in a way that made you feel the stakes. It wasn’t clean. It wasn’t polished. It was war.
In this pathetic sequel, however, the battles are so overproduced and CGI-heavy that they lose all impact (looking at you, Marvel). At one point, a soldier is impaled by a charging rhino, and the resulting explosion of blood looks like something out of a cartoon. Immersion? Dead. To make things worse, CGI super monkeys enter this Ridley Scott spin-off. I found it hard not to audibly laugh in the middle of the theater (I lied — I laughed).
And how does Lucius earn the love of the Colosseum crowd? Does he win a duel or defeat a champion? Nope. He throws dirt at a rhino. That’s it. And the crowd goes wild. Compare that to Maximus, who earned the title of “General of the Felix Legions” and the respect of Rome through his brave leadership. Lucius — he’s the dirt guy who let his own wife die in battle.
How are we, the audience, supposed to empathize with a man like that?
The Heart of the Problem
The biggest failure of “Gladiator II” is that it has no soul — no objective moral backbone. It’s not just the lack of stakes or the over-reliance on CGI; it’s the fact that it doesn’t stand for anything.
The original “Gladiator” was about justice, loyalty, and sacrifice. Maximus didn’t fight for power or revenge — he fought for something greater than himself. He fought for Rome, for his family, for the ideals he believed in. In “Gladiator II,” Lucius fights because … well … the plot says so.
There’s no depth to his character, no purpose to his journey, no moral fortitude in his mission. He’s a hollow shell, and the movie reflects that. This film is a cautionary tale of what happens when Hollywood trades grit, character, and authenticity for leftist political messaging.
My advice? Skip this one. Rewatch the original. Let Maximus remind you of what it means to fight for something worth dying for. And the next time Hollywood asks, “Are you not entertained?” you’ll know the answer.
No, we’re not.
Original Here
|
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
