20s Movie Review - Gladiator II

Director: Ridley Scott

Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Drama

Runtime: 148 minutes

Year: 2024

Starring: Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Connie Nielsen, Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger, Derek Jacobi, Matt Lucas

Description: After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who no lead Rome, Lucius (Paul Mescal) is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.

Review: Director Ridley Scott returns to one of his greatest triumphs. Along with Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal, two of today’s biggest stars, Scott treats audiences to an old-fashioned spectacle from ancient times. Although “Gladiator II” functions just fine as a solid action adventure, it’s more of the same but not quite as good as its predecessor.

The film opens in Numidia, a Roman colony in North Africa. Under the leadership of General Acacius, the Roman Empire invades the last free city and captures much of the male population into slavery. So does the simple soldier Hanno, who impresses in local arenas. Impressed by his boundless hatred for the Roman Empire, slave trader Macrinus buys Hanno and promises him the head od Acacius if he fights for him in the Colosseum.

Initially, “Gladiator II” seems to take a different path than its predecessor, but once Hanno begins to make a name for himself in gladiatorial combat, it becomes increasingly clear how connected the two films are. Joaquin Phoenix’s Emperor Commodus is now split into two characters, played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Heckinger. The twin brothers Geta and Caracalla share the imperial throne together, going delightfully over the top with thei blood lust. Connie Nielsen reprises her role as Lucilla, with yet another personal connection to the star of the Colosseum.

Denzel Washington also plays a seemingly similar character that the first film had. Like Oliver Reed, he is an ex-gladiator who won his freedom and now trains gladiators. But his Macrinus has much bigger ambitions than just entertaining the Roman public, and Washington is drawing more and more attention to himself. Even though being a side character, his performance steels the show.

Paul mescal is a lot less impressive than Russel Crowe, but he is still a believable warrior. Biggest difference is that Crowe could and still can easily carry a film, Mescal as not there yet. Pedro Pascal was the main reason for my excitement for this film, but that was quite disappointing. His character doesn’t really have a lot to do and he is not in the film that much. What he does do, he does well, but his talent if very underused in the film.

As for the first film, “Gladiator II” impresses the most with its visuals and its battle scenes. The scenes in the arena are amazing. There we did see some changes, adding a water filled arena battle to it. But bigger does not always mean better.

If Maximus would ask me if I was entertained, I would definitely say yes. For an action and adventure movie it checks many boxes. But I also have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the overall execution of it all. “Gladiator” is not a favorite movie of mine, but it’s a really good film. “Gladiator II” did everything the first film did, but not as good. And that’s my overall feeling for this film.  

Rating: 3,5/ 5

Movie Review - Nobody

Director: Ilya Naishuller
Genre: Action/ Crime
Runtime: 92 minutes
Year: 2021
Starring: Bob Odenkirk, Connie Nielsen, Aleksey Serebryakov, Christopher Lloyd, Michael Ironside, Colin Salmon, RZA, Billy MacLellan, Ayara Mengesha, Gage Munroe, Aleksandr Pal, Humberly González, Edsson Morales, J.P. Manoux, Adrian McLean
 
Description: A docile family man (Bob Odenkirk) slowly reveals his true character after his house gets burgled by two petty thieves, which, coincidentally, leads him going to a bloody war with a Russian crime boss.

Review: Bob Odenkirk, mostly known for his role as Saul Goodman in “Breaking Bad” and “Better Call Saul”, is not you typical action star. Especially given the fact that Odenkirk is already in his late fifties and he hasn’t done anything action-packed like this before. And it can go wrong, making an actor do something completely different. In “Nobody” it really works and Odenkirk is utterly convincing as the jaded family man Hutch, whose life contains very little tension. But then one night his house is broken into and he sees an opportunity to overpower one of the burglars. But Hutch is smart enough to refrain from such unnecessary provocations. But no matter how well he managed to de-escalate the situation, the experience does something to him. He eventually goes after them, but ends up in a fight with a Russian crime boss.
“Nobody” does remind me of movies like “A History of Violence” or “John Wick”, and it clearly took some inspiration from them. But in the details, you can tell that the filmmakers have thought about the subject matter just a bit more than is usual for this kind of movie. Because it’s mostly an action film, for the most part very serious.
The strongest asset remains the casting of Bob Odenkirk. It seems like a movie for action stars like Bruce Willis or Liam Neeson, but with Odenkirk we actually have someone who actually looks like a normal civilian instead of a born action hero who has to act against his image in the first act. And when Hutch’s true nature is revealed, we see him taking at least as many punches as he gives out. The result is a character for whom it can be rightly feared that he will lose out. The lesson is not that Odenkirk should get every action role from now on, but that ore roles like this would enrich the action genre.
I really loved “Nobody”, and with a standard action star this movie would be a ‘nobody’ film. But by choosing someone like Odenkirk, this movie is given something that makes the film stand-out from others in the genre.

Rating: 4 / 5

Movie Review - Wonder Woman 1984

Director: Patty jenkins
Genre: Action/ Adventure/ science Fiction
Runtime: 151 minutes
Year: 2021
Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Kristen Wiig, Pedro Pascal, Robin Wright, Connie Nielsen

Description: Diana (Gal Gadot) must contend with a work colleague (Kristen Wiig) and businessman (Pedro Pascal), whose desire for extreme wealth sends the world down a path of destruction, after an ancient artifact that grants wishes goes missing.

Review: Compared to the first theatrical adventure revolving around superheroine Wonder Woman, the sequel offers mostly repetition. Despite the generous running time, the filmmakers never make it clear why the film had to be set in the year 1984. Where the first “Wonder Woman” film had us all applauding DC again, “Wonder Woman 1984” sadly doesn’t.
“Wonder Woman 1984” revolves around Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman. This superheroine lives an anonymous life, trying to forget her late love Steve Trevor. When she hears about the Dreamstone, a relic that allows dreams to come true, she wishes her great love would come alive. The financially troubled Maxwell Lord also covets this stone. Meanwhile, Diana’s shy and geeky co-worker Barbara Ann Minerva also makes use of the magical object and transforms into the monstrous Cheetah. However, the Dreamstone has a dangerous side and takes its toll on all its users.
Director Patty Jenkins unfortunately failed to meet the success of the 2017’s “Wonder Woman”. This is due to several factors. First, the story. “Wonder Woman 1984” tries to be more light-hearted and comedic, and in that Jenkins fails quite a bit. The choice was made to set the story in 1980’s, but I believe the sole purpose is just the fashion and neon colors. Chris Pine is a great example, as he is mainly used to walk around dressed in strange clothes. He is supposed to be the comedic note and has little depth, whereas his return is supposed to be emotional.
Cheetah’s origins is also a negative. The caricatured Barbara, stereotypical geeky girl with glasses and frizzy hair. She wishes to be as strong and confident as Diana, and after losing the glasses and changing her outfits, all of a sudden all heads turn and she is smoking hot. Jenkins doesn’t manage to avoid clichés here. And when Barbara eventually turns into Cheetah, it doesn’t look great either.
“Wonder Woman 1984” lacks heart. But Gal Gadot is still a perfect Diana Prince. Her charm, charisma and warmth are what somewhat save the film from being a total fail. She makes Diana sympathetic. However, this isn’t enough to captivate for the full runtime.

Rating: 2,5 / 5

10s Movie Review - Justice League

Director: Zack Snyder
Genre: Action.. Adventure/ Fantasy/ Science Fiction
Runtime: 121 minutes
Year: 2017
Starring: Gal Gadot, Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher, Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons, Connie Nielsen, Diane Lane, Amber Heard, Robin Wright, J.K. Simmons, Ciarán Hinds, Billy Crudup

Description: Fuled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) selfless act, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists the help of his new-found ally, Diana Prince (Gal Gadot), to face an even greater enemy.

I WATCHED THIS MOVIE FOR MY 2020 MOVIE CHALLENGE
WEEK 45: A DC COMICS MOVIE

Review: I don’t like saying this, but “Justice League” reminds me a lot of “The Avengers”. Not only the tone and the humor, but also the story structure is similar: short introductions of all the team members, the search of a bad guy Steppenwolf, and even the way the team fights against itself. Or take the entrance of Steppenwolf teleports to Earth thanks to a magical cube, and tries to get his hands on it while soldiers try to stop him. It’s not necessarily copied, the so-called Motherboxes do come from the original stories, but they are clearly playing it safe with the intention of “Justice League”. He therefore misses the impact, innovation and own identity that “The Avengers” had.
It turns out to be a successful formula, which proides a significant improvement over the overambitious “Batman V Superman”. Whereas the dark predecessor threw all kinds of subplots, themes and comic strips into a blender and hoped for a form of coherence, Zack Snyder had a clear them for the sequel. The film opens with the meaning of Superman’s emblem, the symbol for hope. This time it’s not a nice one-liner, but the core of the film. Truly every character ans subplot revolves around hope: Flash’s relationship with his father, Cyborg’s resurrection, Batman and Wonder Woman’s struggle with their past and Aquaman’s cantankerous and lonely quest for more. The tone is therefore more consistent than ever in the DCEU.  
Steppenwolf is allowed to join the lon line of uninteresting bad guys. His background as the seconds of Darkseid and his role as a military leader of the Planet Apokolips are hardly explained. Moreover, there is not glimmer of charisma or personality. “Justice League” has more lack of construction. Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman haven’t been able to benefit from a solo film yet, and have to try to develop their characters within some scenes.
The best thin about “Justice League” is, especially for the fans, that the fifth DCEU movie finally has a grip on the source material. The interaction between all the heroes is convincing and strong. And especially The Flash is a pleasant and enjoyable presence.
Compared to the other superhero movies that came out in 2017, “Justice League” is too safe to compete with. “Justice League” feels more like a rectification, mainly due to the optimistic and heroic tone in the last few shots.

Rating: 3,5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2017 - # 78: Wonder Woman

Director: Patty Jenkins
Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Fantasy/ Science Fiction
Runtime: 133 minutes
Year: 2017
Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright, Danny Huston, David Thewlis, Ewen Bremner, Lucy Davis

Description: Before she was Wonder Woman she was Diana (Gal Gadot), princess of the Amazons, trained warrior. When a pilot (Chris Pine) crashes and tells of conflict in the outside world, she leaves home to fight a war to end all wars, discovering her full powers and true destiny.

Review: DC isn’t doing as well as Marvel at the moment. “Batman V Superman” and “Suicide Squad” both disappointed, and “Man of Steel” got mixed reviews. Well, leave up to the women, because “Wonder Woman” is an amazing film. Director Patty Jenkins didn’t have an easy task, but she did a fantastic job.
The biggest strength of “Wonder Woman” is portraying believable, human heroes in an extravagant world.
Gal Gadot has a lot of room to develop Diana Prince. She grows up as a strong woman, wanting to fight for justice. A bit naïve she goes into the world to end World War I. Gadot is very charismatic, gorgeous and impressive in her role as Diana Prince. Chris Pine is her love interest and the two have amazing chemistry. The dialogues between the two are great and the romantic elements are kept to a minimal. And the humor is subtle.
The film is action packed, but it’s the right amount of action we get. There is only violence when it really matters. There is more room for character development. But whenever there is an action sequence, it impresses. Sometimes you see Zack Snyder’s influence, especially in those slow-motion moments.
Did I like “Wonder Woman”? No. I loved it. I always love watching strong female characters come to life on the big screen, it just happens that this one is also physically strong. And that a film like this is directed by a woman is also something that makes me happy. “Wonder Woman” is what DC needed right now and what I needed.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2015 - # 38: The Ice Harvest

Director: Harold Ramis

Genre: Comedy/ Crime/ Thriller

Runtime: 92 minutes

Year: 2005

Starring: John Cusack, Billy Bob Thornton, Connie Nielsen, Ned Bellamy, Mike Starr, Oliver Platt

Description: A shady lawyer (John Cusack) attempts a Christmas Eve crime, hoping to swindle the local mob out of some money. But his partner (Billy Bob Thornton), a strip club owner, might have different plans for the cash.

Review: Christmas Eve is a traditional, cozy night where you spend time with your family and loved ones. In “The Ice Harvest” it’s not that idyllic. Because like they say in the movie: “Only morons are nice on Christmas”.

Lawyer Charlie and partner Vic stole money from Charlie’s boss. Before they can run away, they have a few hours to kill. They want to act as normal as possible, but off course that doesn’t happen. A man called Roy, a hitman working for Charlie’s boss, is looking for the two men. When it comes to money, you can’t trust anyone. Vic isn’t planning on sharing the money with Charlie.

One of the first things you notice in “The Ice Harvest”, is the film-noir style. Especially in the character of Renata, Charlie’s love interest. Renata is an old school femme fatale. The dialogues in the movie are very good, only a shame that the story develops slowly.

“The Ice Harvest” is a dark comedy. John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton are perfect for this genre. Cusack is the one you sympathize with and Thornton is, as always, a little bit weird. Their collaboration is surprising and fun.

“The Ice Harvest” is an anti-Christmas movie, with great humor and a good cast. Great for the fans of film-noir movies and dark humor.

Rating: 4/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2014 - # 131: Rushmore

Director: Wes Anderson

Genre: Drama/ Comedy

Runtime: 93 minutes

Year: 1998

Starring: Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Olivia Williams, Brian Cox, Luke Wilson, Andrew Wilson, Connie Nielsen, Seymour Cassel

Description: Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) is a precocious 15-year-old whose reason for living is his attendance at Rushmore, a private school where he's not doing well in any of his classes, but where he's the king of extracurricular activities. His life begins to change, however, when he finds out he's on academic probation, and when he stumbles into love with Miss Cross (Olivia Williams), a pretty teacher of the elementary school at Rushmore. Added to the mix is his friendship with Herman Blume (Bill Murray), wealthy industrialist and father to boys who attend the school, and who also finds himself attracted to Miss Cross. Max's fate becomes inextricably tied to this odd love triangle.

Review: The story of Max isn’t a very extraordinary story. The story of a boy who wants to be an adult, but isn’t. Max actually discovers that something like growing up, hardly exists. And this makes the story of “Rushmore” very extraordinary. Because of the person Max is, because he’s everything but ordinary. It’s Jason Schwartman’s debut role and a bright future is ahead of him.

Max is a typical teenager with feeling of insecurity and he hates studying. How this is worked into the film, is a-typical. Max creates his own ‘grown up world’ by starting all sorts of communities and groups and begins friendships with actual adults. For example Miss Cross, who Max falls in love with. Miss Cross is older and falls for the charms of Max’ other friend Herman Blume. But Miss Cross finds out that he’s just as childish as Max is. Because Herman Blume is still stuck in his teen years, makes him equal to Max. Even when they are fighting for the same woman, they can’t live without each other. The only difference is that Max intends to grow up eventually and Blume knows that, despite all his money, he can’t take on the world.

Director Wes Anderson gives the film a fantastic atmosphere. By using bright colors and still moments, the films has a calm and observing character. An excellent example is the scene of Blume jumping in a pool at his twin sons birthday party. This atmosphere make the experience very relaxed and the introvert acting fits it perfectly. Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray are the stars and shine in every scene. Olivia Williams also does a great job.

I’ve become a big Wes Anderson fan over the years and this, as one of his first films, is going on my favorites list.

Rating: 5/ 5