Mildly entertaining- and very disappointing.
First thought is that the excessive bloodshed throughout the movie was so unnecessary. Have me facing the back of a person who’s throat is cut. The director achieves the same result as showing the audience the actually throat cut open. I understand what has happened to the victim from the back - I do not need to see the throat cut open 3 or 4 times, veins and guts and blood flying everywhere. This excessive focus on mutilation was just over the top. Do we really need to see Denzels arm cut off at the end? This added nothing to the story. It’s a gladiator movie and violence is needed for the story, but excessive violence as used here takes away from the actually story.
Visually: same gladiator “academy” used in the first movie; same colosseum; same palace rooms- nothing new there. We do get to see the degradation of the Roman citizens and their poverty.
Acting: Denzel Washington walked though his role - anybody could have played that part. No one actor achieved a command performance. I did not feel the stimulation of the gladiators either fighting, nor rising to revolt in the end. I just do not see how Lucas/Paul Mescal became the inspiration and “leader” to the other gladiators. He won his bouts, but didn’t the others win theirs in order for us to see them at the end? He did not establish himself as the “Spaniard” did. I understand a move can take liberties, but are we to believe Macrinus and Lucas can just ride past 5,000 soldiers, officers and general staff unhindered and unquestioned? Can 5,000 soldiers of each of the 2 armies spread across 2 Italian hillsides really hear what Lucas was yelling at the entrance arch in order to cheer in the end?