I Am Not Entertained

'Gladiator II' is the latest unbearably unimaginative legacy sequel. Does it have to be this way?

In an alternate universe, here’s what might have happened in Gladiator II:

The film picks up in the afterlife, where Russell Crowe’s Maximus embarks on an odyssey to find his wife and son; Maximus is resurrected in the body of a dying Christian in Lyons; he faces off with Commodus’ nephew Lucius, who has become Rome’s new malevolent Emperor; Maximus is cursed to live forever, and winds up fighting in the most prominent wars of the future; and he concludes the film working at the Pentagon in 2000s America, struggling with his inner violence and the loss of his family.  

That version of Gladiator II was written by Nick Cave in the mid-aughts. And given that my quick recap hardly does justice to how trippy and audacious it would have been, it’s not surprising that Paramount Pictures didn’t take a chance on it. Nor is it surprising that what we wound up with instead is the most dull, phoned-in (yes, totally bogus) possible Gladiator sequel. 

I’ve tried to keep this newsletter focused on films and filmmakers that are, at a bare minimum, working in good faith — earnestly and passionately pursuing something personal and interesting. But today I have to vent about a few films that are not. I’m thinking of the spate of legacy sequels that have emerged this year. In addition to Gladiator II, there’s been Twisters and Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. 

Of course, legacy sequels are nothing new. Hollywood has been recycling and expanding past hits for about as long as it’s been making movies. Some of these efforts have been good, more have been bad. But with the appeal of superhero films waning, and also coming off the wild success of Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: The Way of Water, my suspicion is that these things are on the rise right now. (And indeed, next year, there will be Freakier Friday, Karate Kid: Legends, and, best of all, The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection.)

Which is theoretically fine. I’d much rather see a sequel to an old movie I like than a new Marvel film. Really, reviving old films that were initially made to stand alone should offer freedom and possibility. You’ve got the vague contours of a world (gladiators! twisters!), and… that’s it. There are no plot strands you have to tie up, no characters you have to include. You can theoretically do whatever you want. And no matter what you do, the IP will just about guarantee you make lots of money.

And yet, if there’s one thing that ties all of these films together it’s how safe and constrained they feel. These movies are technically sequels, but they might as well be remakes. Their fidelity to the original films is all-encompassing. They borrow plot arcs, character dynamics, signature visual motifs, and settings. When they do switch up variables and gesture at modernizing these stories, they do it with an AI-level of imagination. Ultimately, they discard any trace of soul that the originals contained. (And don’t get me started on the CGI.)