Gladiator 2's Villain Is So Much More Interesting Than Its Hero

Major spoilers for "Gladiator II" follow.

I have to hand it to the "Gladiator II" marketing department: they did a good job keeping the film's main villain a secret. When I sat down to watch Ridley Scott's sequel (read my review here), the trailers had convinced me that the film's villains would be the twin emperors played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger and a general played by Pedro Pascal. After all, the emperor (played by Joaquin Phoenix) was the villain in the first film, and the trailers for "Gladiator II" make it clear that the movie's main character, Lucius, played by Paul Mescal, wants revenge against Pascal's general. 

But "Gladiator II" has a few twists up its sleeve. While Pascal's character, General Acacius, does cause the death of Lucius' wife in the opening scene of the film, we quickly learn that he's not really such a bad guy. For one thing, he's married to Lucius' mother, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). He also despises those twin emperors and wants to lead a revolt against them. As for the emperors, Geta and Caracalla (who are inspired by real historical figures), they are antagonists in the film, but they have rather minor roles to play. By the time the film reaches its big climax, Acacius and the twins will all be dead thanks to the work of the film's real villain: Macrinus, played by a scene-stealing Denzel Washington.

Washington is by far the best part of "Gladiator II." Unfortunately, this ends up hurting the film in a few ways. You see, Washington is so good here, and so charismatic, that he ends up being far more entertaining to watch than the film's star, Paul Mescal. I think Mescal is a pretty good actor, but he seems out of his element in a big Hollywood blockbuster — he's more suited for supporting roles or leading smaller indie films. Washington, meanwhile, is one of our best living actors, and anytime he's not on screen, "Gladiator II" sags. On top of that, Macrinus' story is more interesting. You end up wishing the film had cut out Lucius entirely and focused on Macrinus instead. 

As "Gladiator II" approached, we got some clues about Washington's Macrinus. In an interview, director Ridley Scott said of the character: "He's wealthier than most senators. So already has thoughts and designs of the possible idea of taking power from these two crazy princes." In addition to that, the "Gladiator II" trailers have hinted that Washington's character was up to something — "I must have power!" he's heard saying. Still, none of this really indicated that he would be the film's ultimate big bad. And the movie itself takes its time revealing this. 

For a large chunk of the film, Marcinus seems to be little more than a rebooted version of Oliver Reed's character from the first "Gladiator." In that movie, Reed played Proximo, a former gladiator turned gladiator promoter who buys Russell Crowe's Maximus and helps him become a famous gladiator. Proximo is ultimately sympathetic to Maximus, and ends up being killed for his troubles (Reed actually died during the film's production, and some of his scenes had to be completed using a stand-in with Reed's face digitally added). A lot of "Gladiator II" plays out like a rehash of the events of the first film: like Maximus, Paul Mescal's Lucius is a slave who becomes a gladiator, owned by gladiator promoter Macrinus. With all that in mind, I assumed that Macrinus would help Lucius and be more of an ally. 

But halfway through the film, things change. Macrinus learns that General Acacius, working with Lucilla and some sympathetic senators, plans to overthrow the emperors and also free Lucius from slavery. He quickly informs the emperors of this plot, and Acacius, Lucilla, and the sympathetic senators are all captured. Acacius is forced to fight Lucius in the Colosseum, but by this point, Lucius has figured out that Acacius isn't the villain he thought he was, and refuses to kill this man who is now married to his mother. Unfortunately, that doesn't save Acacius, who is killed at the orders of the emperors. As for Macrinus, he's just getting started. He ends up killing Geta so that the more unstable Caracalla can seize power alone. Since Caracalla is disturbed and easily manipulated, Macrinus knows he can use the newly solo emperor to push his own agenda, and his agenda is the total destruction of Rome itself. 

"Gladiator II" positions Lucius to be the film's big hero who will bring peace to Rome, fulfilling the dream of his grandfather, the murdered Marcus Aurelius (played by Richard Harris in the first "Gladiator"). But as we eventually learn, Macrinus was a slave owned by Marcus Aurelius, and he wants revenge against his former master by bringing down Rome in the process. Through his various manipulations, Macrinus is able to sow discord in Rome, and riots break out in the streets. But here's the thing: it's very easy to be sympathetic to Macrinus. He kind of has a point! While the move pays lip service to vague talk of hope and dreams, the reality is that Rome is an empire paved with blood and suffering. With all that in mind, you might find yourself rooting for Macrinus, a man who used to be enslaved by Rome and its leader. It's clear that the movie wants Macrinus to be the dark flip-side to Lucius: both men are slaves (or in Macrinus' case, a former slave) with a thirst for revenge, but Lucius is able to grow beyond his bloodlust and forgive, while Macrinus is not. 

Director Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa also work hard to make Macrinus seem like a bad guy, going so far as to have him murder Lucius' mother (and Marcus Aurelius' daughter), Lucilla. But even by the time that happens, you're still kind of rooting for Macrinus, primarily because Denzel Washington is so damn charismatic. Which brings me back to my previous point: "Gladiator II" would've been far more interesting if Macrinus had been the main character. I get it: Lucius is a character from the previous film, and it's revealed that he's the son of Maximus, so sure, it makes sense that he ends up being the hero. But if the story had focused primarily on Macrinus and his plan to destroy Rome, we would've had a much better movie on our hands. It would also be a more challenging, complex film, and I suppose that's not what anyone wanted here — they wanted an entertaining blockbuster, and sure enough, that's what they got. "Gladiator II" is enjoyable enough. But it could've been something better.

"Gladiator II" is now playing in theaters.