The son of Marcus Aurelius seizes control of Rome and sends assassins to eliminate Maximus. Captured by a slave trader, Maximus becomes a gladiator and plots his revenge.

This film is a paradigm of effectiveness and an epic peplum, a genre that had fallen into disuse, offering a breathtaking spectacle. The themes are fundamentally American, such as family and heroism. While I appreciated it as entertainment, I recognize that intellectualizing the film too much would miss its point. The dialogues are composed of sharp and memorable lines. Russell Crowe delivers a charismatic performance as a fundamentally noble character, while Joaquin Phoenix subtly portrays a spiteful tyrant. However, the film is persistently and overtly manichean, and the storyline—of a gladiator rising against an emperor—lacks credibility.

A visual and thematic masterpiece, Gladiator stands as a bold revival of the epic genre.

Under the rule of tyrannical twin emperors, Lucius becomes a gladiator, seeking vengeance against those responsible for his enslavement.

Twenty-four years later, Rome remains under despotic control—what of Marcus Aurelius' dream? Ridley Scott, the octogenarian filmmaker, has amplified the epic essence of the original with a sensational sequel. The film features an impressive array of beasts, such as a rhinoceros and ferocious monkeys, that are fought in the arena. Additionally, the movie offers a melancholic reflection on the fall of empires. However, the film's tendency toward excess renders some scenes absurd, like sharks in a water-filled arena, while others are historically implausible, such as appointing a Black man as consul (despite the actor stealing the spotlight from Paul Mescal) or a macaque (!). Nevertheless, the film delivers on its promise: a spectacular and flawless entertainment experience, despite its unforgivable anachronisms.