Gladiator II review

 

I just saw Gladiator II, and here are my thoughts…

A soldier becomes a Gladiator to seek revenge against a Roman general, while the very power of Rome hangs in the balance.

So I really like the first Gladiator, it’s really special, well made, and was one of my favorites growing up. So when I heard they were making a sequel, my first thought was… why? I mean “spoilers for a 24-year-old movie” when your main character dies at the end after defeating the bad guy, that kind of negates the need for a sequel. So I went in with very low expectations, and I can safely say it was better than I thought it would be, it didn’t blow me away, but to paraphrase Maximus… I was entertained lol

I was impressed by the lead actor Paul Mescal, I know he’s popular for his work in some indie films, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen him. He has real talent, charm, and leading man material. Now his character is a bit predictable, he loses a loved one at the beginning of the film, so you get all the big hits of the character, seeking revenge… moody, brooding, vengeful, yelling “noooooooo”… all the classics. The actor performs them well and they work for the story. So like good leftovers, you know exactly what you’re gonna get, but you enjoy it.

Pedro Pascal’s character was interesting, he’s the one the gladiator is seeking revenge against so I was thinking he’d be like a dick you’d be rooting for to get his ass kicked, but he was actually pretty sympathetic and kind of a nice guy, definitely added good drama to him and the main characters dynamic. You don’t think he deserves to die, but you know the gladiator is coming for him.

Denzel Washington’s character is very complex, I don’t want to say much because part of the fun is discovering what’s going on with him, but as always, Denzel brings a lot of charm, charisma, and pathos to the role.

Joseph Quinn & Fred Hechinger are good at playing creepy almost incestuous brother co-emperors. Quinn reminded me of Malachi from Children of the Corn in his weird aloof religious fever, while Hechinger reminded me of Patrick Starr and his intelligence… I got some good laughs out of him.

Connie Nielsen returns from the first one… She’s a great actress and does a fantastic job, you get to see a lot of the interweaving Roman politics through her, and that stuff is interesting.

My favorite character in the movie is Ravi, the Colosseum Doctor, the actor brings a lot of charm and subtle humor, and the character is really likable and funny.

But the main attraction of this film is the action scenes, it is incredible how Ridley Scott can stage these action scenes to not only feel realistic but gave you some cool spectacle… and boy does it get bloody and harsh, like they’re definitely gonna be some deaths you’re gonna go like “damn that was rough”

There’s a lot of plot in this, with revenge and politics, intriguing backstabbing, and hopes for democracy… the story is like a winding road you’re gonna get to where you’re going, but it’s gonna be bumpy along the way and your head might spin a few times lol

This is going to sound contradictory, but while I thought the movie was too long and could’ve been shortened, I feel like they left some stuff out that could’ve enhanced the story. for example, there are a few parts where the main character has jumps in his character and motivations, and you’ll be sitting there, thinking… Well, that was sudden and kind of out of nowhere. I bet you there is a Director cut somewhere out there that has a bunch of these scenes, you can kind of tell by the editing. Would this overall help the movie, hard to say, but I would be interested in seeing them.

Small nitpick: We don’t see the Gladiator with his loved ones before they die, so when they inevitably kick the bucket, you don’t feel as much weight of him losing them. Since most of the plot hangs on him wanting revenge, we would’ve felt that way more if we, too, had felt the loss of that character.

Also, I’ve been to the Colosseum, and while I didn’t really go inside… I don’t think it was fortified to be a water tank. There’s a whole scene with boats and sharks, and while it looked cool… it was very historically inaccurate, but this isn’t the most historically accurate series so it can pass.

I will say the costumes were really cool. They really outdid themselves with not only the number of them but also with making them cool and accurate to the time. I hope the costume department gets an Oscar nomination.

I would describe this movie as a crowd-pleaser. It may rehash ideas and have some issues here and there, but overall you can tell a lot of care was put into the filmmaking and you’ll have a good time watching it… I give it somewhere between a low four stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ and a high three stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Here Review

 

I saw the movie Here, and Here are my thoughts lol…

We see the lives of all the different people from one location throughout time…

This is kind of a gimmick movie. As I said, the entire film takes place from this one perspective of a location. You’re a literal fly on the wall, and you pretty much see everything: dinosaurs, nature growing, Native Americans, Benjamin Franklin, the entire 20th century, and up until today.

The film has many characters, in many different time periods. Some have interesting arcs and others feel like they should’ve had more screen time, but the entire cast gives very good and believable performances… a little stagey and melodramatic at times, but overall commendable.

The tone is very schmaltzy like it tries to pull on your heartstrings like a compulsive caffeine-fueled puppeteer… Sometimes it works, and sometimes it feels a bit heavy-handed, your mileage may vary.

A story that, for 90% of the time takes place in one room, the film has a lot of CGI in it. For de-aging effects and the transitions it’s pretty good, but whenever they have to show outside, boy you can tell clear as day they are on a set.

It was interesting how they showed the passage of time, never giving out dates but if you noticed what was playing on the TV or a T-shirt someone was wearing or just the technology, you were able to figure out where and when they were.

The pacing was kind of weird like they were jumping between so many different time periods and almost at random… Like you’d be in the '60s, then you go back to the 1700s then you go to the 1600s then the 20s then back to the '80s then to the 50s, and then to the '80s again… It tried to go for an emotional flow more than a linear story mode, but it did make things feel a bit off.

I think my favorite characters were the couple that created the La-Z-Boy… They were just fun.

Big props to the set designers, they had a big challenge because you’re gonna be looking at one room for about 1:45 minutes so they had to make it look distinct and not boring for the audience and they did a very good job.

I have to knock major points off for the cameraman… He did nothing in this movie, like did you just sit there the whole time… lol ha ha ha

So I can’t say this is a bad movie, a lot of work and heart went into it, and everyone does a really good job, but it’s not the most impact… You’ll see it and be like “That was interesting” and then just kind of move on. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a really good trip to Wendy’s (I mean that more positively than it sounds lol)

I give it a three-star ⭐️⭐️⭐️ despite its shortcomings, I had a good time and that’s what counts.

Heretic Review

 

I saw Heretic, and here are my thoughts...

 

Heretic is about two Mormon missionaries who attempt to convert a man named Mr. Reed (which sounds like mystery connection???) only to discover his is playing a darker game that will test their faith.

 

The movie starts off like what I call a “polite thriller," where characters feel and suspect something off or threatening is happening to them but are trying to get through it with politeness, which is where the tension comes from... so a lot of uncomfortable smiles.

 

A lot of this is helped by Hugh Grant’s performance, who takes his “charmingly befuddled” screen persona and uses it to make the character seem likable at first, but then quickly becomes very strange and scary in his overpoliteness. 

 

The two leads (Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East) are both terrific. East in a more naïve but sweet way and Thatcher in a more clever but struggling with her faith kind of way. It’s a good dichotomy between the two characters, and both have a lot of emotions they have to go through (levels of fear), and both are very good and sympathetic.

 

The first half or so is Mr. Reed questioning the girls on the different aspects of religion, their faith, and the nature of their belief... This is all written with very sharp and smart dialogue, mixed with very well crafted and effective directing by the filmmakers. You can tell they put a lot of thought and effort into both, and it’s very enjoyable to watch.

 

I will say the film is very effective at keeping you on your toes, like usually I’m pretty good about sussing out where a story is going, but threw out most of this, I had no idea what was going to happen next. It kept me highly engaged throughout, which is very commendable.

 

I’m not going to go into spoilers, but there are a lot of interesting ideas introduced in the second half or so; unfortunately, where the movie ends up, I thought was a little lackluster and underwhelming compared to the beginning, almost like the filmmakers brought themselves into a corner and weren’t sure how to get out of it... I did like the very last scene though.

 

Topher Grace is in the film in a very small part, mostly to add tension, but it’s always nice to see him pop up in things. 

 

The sound mixing was fantastic; the way they mixed all the creeks and cracks and sounds of the house really added to the tension.

 

Props to the decorators; the look of everything had a cozy woodland cabin home, tranquil church, and creepy forest feeling that was very nice to look at... kinda like Buffalo Bills summer cabin lol

 

Again, for the most part, the dialogue is very good at exploring the belief and disbelief in God the characters are, in a very understandable but clever and funny way.

Without spoiling anything, there is a pretty funny Star Wars reference in, it made me laugh lol

 

So in summation, I overall enjoyed the film. The filmmaking  and performances were very well done and entertaining; I just wish where it all led was more satisfying and less generic in its ending. It’s a movie. I feel like you’ll watch it once and get a good time out of it... but repeat feelings not so much; it’s really up to the viewer.

 

I give it a high three stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Conclave review

 

Recently, I saw Conclave, and here are my thoughts…

We follow the election of a new pope and a cardinal, discovering dark and surprising secrets of the candidates...

 

Conclave's big appeal and focus is on the acting; this cast is stacked with big, reliable, fantastic actors working at the top of their game.

 

You really feel a lot for Ralph Fiennes character, you can tell he’s very conflicted about the church and his beliefs, and he has to deal with some unsavory things, and he really doesn’t want to, but he has to move forward with the betterment of the church. A lot of good acting, and you feel a lot of sympathy. 

John Lithgow and Stanley Tucci are in the movie, and everyone loves them; they’re always great, and this movie is no exception.

Isabella Rossellini is in the movie, and based on the trailers, you think she has a more substantial role, but she’s in the background mostly, which I didn’t expect or the best use of her skills, but she's still solid.

 

There are two surprises in this one: Lucian Msamati, who really gets a chance to shine here. It is nice to see him get an opportunity because he is super talented.

 

There is a Hispanic actor, Carlos Diehz. His character is very soft-spoken and subtle, but he still knows how to steal a scene and puts a lot of empathy and understanding into his performance.

 

This movie is very quiet and contemplative. But it has one of the most effective jump scares I’ve had in a long time.

 

The movie has a lot of scenes of guys sitting around, reflecting and contemplating decisions, so it can get a little long in the tooth in that area, like you’re going to see a lot of Ralph Fiennes face going, "What should I do?"

 

On a technical level, I was really impressed by the framing of this movie. For a film about people talking and sitting around voting, they know how to make it look beautiful; they also have gorgeous Roman religious places to film, so that definitely helps, but the cameraman definitely knew how to shoot it.

 

It was interesting to see what goes into the process of electing a new pope. 

 

I would categorize this as a thriller, but a thriller for your parents or even grandparents.

 

I saw this around 12:30 in the morning,

in a pretty packed small theater, and I was probably the youngest person there by about 20 years. So that kind of tells you the target audience of this movie, but if you’re really into good actors giving good performances, you’ll really enjoy the movie.

 

I wouldn’t say this is the movie you need to rush out and see, like if it’s a lazy Saturday or Sunday and you just like looking for something nice and cozy, but with some intellect attached, I think this would be a fun watch, especially if you’re into like political intrigue or learning about what happens when a pope dies in a new one is elected. I don’t think it will blow your socks off; you will walk away, satisfied.

 

I give it a low three stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Anora Review

I saw the movie Anora, here are my thoughts…

Aurora is an exotic dancer who begins a Cinderella-type romance with a rich party boy, but problems arise when the parents find out…

The first half of this movie is like “working-class Cinderella meets Showgirls.” We follow Anora and her hard-knock life of staying up all night, dancing half-naked for drunk guys, and trying to get as much money as she can to pay the rent. We all have bills to pay, so we can sympathize with her for having to make money in a tough job.

Then Anora meets Ivan, whose charm is also what’s wrong with him… He’s incredibly naïve. When he shows up, he doesn’t speak English well, but he’s just looking to have a good time and party with people. He’s like if Goofy were a spoiled rich club kid: “Gosh, let’s have fun and go to Vegas Mickey, hu-ha.” 

So Ivan takes Anora on these whirlwind adventures, to giant mansions with beautiful views, gets her all these expensive outfits and things, a free private jet ride to Vegas with limbo rides, Highroller hotel sweats that look like a Roman Colosseum, and a private pool balcony… and he’s always like, “Let’s go do more fun things,” so who wouldn’t want to hang out with this guy?

And then, admits the glamour, sex, and cocaine… Ivan wants to marry Anora, and you realize “Oh this kid doesn’t know how the real world works and has never heard the word responsibility”. Because in his mind he’s like “Oh this girl spends time with me, that means she likes me. And we have fun, she loves me”. And it’s like no bitch, you keep paying her to hang out, this a stripper who is riding the money train until the wheels fall off. And you can’t fault Anora because we who live in the world and know the value of money know she’s just doing her job and trying to make as much as possible… but as the trailer shows, they get hitched.

So a small critique, as previously stated, through the first half of Anora is clearly just milking Ivan like she’s Farmer Joe getting milk from old Betsy, but at some point, she actually falls for him and wants a life with him… But we never see that eureka “oh wow I guess I actually “like him” like him” moment, and through the second half she goes through a lot to try and be with this guy and I think it would’ve made the character’s motivation more clear and sympathetic if we had seen that scene.

So this movie is getting a lot of praise for Mikey Madison’s performance, which I can safely say does meet the hype. Now the character of Anora is a mixed bag, at first, she can be fun in that abrasive “Fran Drescher, Harley Quinn, Jersey Shore” caricature kind of way. But like Ivan, her greatest charm is also her greatest annoyance… she can be so confrontational like she will drop swears like giving fine china plates to be held by a blind hurdle runner. But her rough edges are mostly used for comedy's sake, so you roll with it. Also, Mikey brings a lot of nuance and emotion that isn’t necessarily on the page, which adds a lot of depth and intrigue to the character.

Then the movie turns when Ivan‘s parents find out and are less than thrilled to find out their son has married a stripper… and that’s when this movie becomes what I can describe as a Cohen Brothers version of Trailer Park Boys… Trailer Park Comrades lol

This is one of the funniest movies I’ve seen all year, my experience was helped out a really lively audience, but there’s a lot of funny gags, physical humor, and “Abbott and Costello” type wordplay that makes it darkly fun. 

We meet Toros, Igor, and Garnick… who have a sort of” The Three Stooges” dynamic. The guy who plays Toros brought a lot of nervous chaotic energy to his comedy, he was probably the funniest character in the film. 

Igor is just tired and wants to go home… We’ve all been there, very sympathetic.

The actor who plays Garnick at first starts out as someone you think is just a thick-headed muscle, but throughout the film, he brings a lot of nuance and emotion with just his eyes… He might actually be the heart of the film.

The movie does go on a bit long, but it never loses me with the comedy, artist moments, or emotional beats (which I appreciate and think the film does a pretty good job at). But it does start repeating some of those beats and it doesn’t add much to the film, just prolongs it, where I think the overall movie could’ve had more of an emotional impact if it was a bit shorter and tighter.

Some other notable enjoyable side characters were Ivan‘s mom and Aurora‘s rival Diamond, they were very much over-the-top almost mustache-twirling obstacles, but they were so fun at chewing scene; I got some good laughs out of them.

The movie looks gorgeous, with a lot of soft lights and bright colors, but always almost natural lighting, like looking at a sunny day or beautiful sunset is how would describe this movie, but also natural and realistic.

Now cinephiles love this director Sean Baker like they LOVE to ego stroke this guy. And this being the first movie I’ve ever seen of his, I can say he is super talented. He knows how to get natural and fun performances out of the cast, he’s very good with the camera, setting mood, and getting pretty shots. Plus I’ve read he’s a very kind and supportive person to collaborate with, so that’s always great.

Now this movie has some good Oscar buzz, and with Sean Baker being a “critics darling”, (which is someone critics and film people will just hype up and get super excited over, thinking they loved their work in the past so they’re just gonna be great no matter what), you’ll hear a lot of praise and acclamations from people (which is mostly well deserved) but heading into the film might feel a bit daunting and non-intentionally affect your viewing of the film… so I would say, just forget what you’re hearing, go in an form your own opinion. I think it’s very accessible to general audiences and between the comedy and the artistry, there’s something for everyone to like.

For me, this movie plays into a lot of things I like, good laughs, well-made visuals, interesting characters, and good-looking ladies dressed as school girls 😅 it’s a nice stew of my favorite things, and while it all doesn’t come together as much as I’d hope, it was very entertaining, had a satisfying ending, and I had a great time while watching it... I give it a low six out of five stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

But my absolute favorite part of the movie was seeing in the credits that my friend Acei Martin was the stunt double for the lead actress. I didn’t even know she was in the movie, but by chance, I saw her name and literally let out an excited gasp 😮 it’s wicked awesome that she gets to work on such cool films doing fun stuff, excited and happy for her success ❤️