For a film that sold itself on the premise of action staple Jason Statham facing off against a giant, prehistoric shark – and grossed over $500 million globally in the process – it was a particular let-down that 2018’s The Meg had, well, very little of Statham v shark to speak of. A creature feature where the cheese should have been thicker and the pleasure far more guilty, Jon Turteltaub’s actioner failed to take advantage of its premise.
But in an industry where money talks, Statham’s penchant for giant shark battles has been revisited for Meg 2: The Trench where Turteltaub has been bizarrely replaced by British filmmaker Ben Wheatley. Now, I say bizarrely because Wheatley, thus far, has delighted in more psychologically damaging films, ones that oft incorporate darkly black comedy, and though something like Meg 2 would indeed benefit from an injection of dark humour, the man behind such efforts as Kill List, Free Fire and Happy New Year, Colin Burnstead doesn’t scream “book me for a killer shark movie!”
Whatever the cause for Wheatley agreeing to helm Meg 2, he’s at least aware that what he is making isn’t particularly good – the script from Jon Hoeber, Erich Hoeber and Dean Georgaris leaves A LOT to be desired – and it’s that self awareness that helps the film survive its far too generous running time of 116 minutes. Working with a story that’s too convoluted for its own good – do we really need much exposition when it comes to a giant shark movie? – Meg 2 welcomes Statham’s resourceful Jonas Taylor back to the fray with an introductory action sequence that feels like it could be lifted from any of the action star’s catalogue.
Despite the fact that too many of his co-stars survived the last film – another of its sins was not making chum of its expansive ensemble – Cliff Curtis and Page Kennedy are the only two returning actors on board here, but it’s perfectly acceptable if you don’t remember them because Meg 2 pretty much serves as a standalone feature. All you really need to know is that the trio are part of a research team on an exploratory dive to uncover the secrets hidden at the depths of the ocean, and the sub-titular trench is an untapped barrier of sorts that, once penetrated, welcomes a hoard of colossal Megs – Megalodons for the uninitiated – to the surface where they wreak havoc.
If only it were that quick and simple though. Seemingly not learning from the mistake of its predecessor, Meg 2 sidelines its biggest enticement for the majority of its running time, with the first 2/3rds of Wheatley’s horror-wannabe actioner dedicated to Statham and a crew of interchangeable victims-in-waiting walking the ocean floor in enhanced suits when their explore pods are compromised. There’s sabotage from the heads up above – it shouldn’t be too difficult to work out who the scene-chewing villain proves to be – and we are briefly privy to the fact that there’s a giant octopus also to contend with, but it ultimately all just proves as ridiculous fodder for the film’s true pièce de résistance; its bonkers last hour.
Advertisement
Fusing together both its giant sharks and octopi, as well as gun-toting terrorist archetypes, and dinosaurs – because, why not!?!? – Meg 2 truly comes alive in its closing third as it throws caution to the wind, jumps itself, and embraces the batshit lunacy of its premise with a clear wink in its eye; it’s just a shame it took too long to get there. As the Megs move in on an island resort where guests don’t move fast enough out of harm’s way – i.e. the mouth of a giant shark (points for Wheatley for adding in a POV shot from the inside of said shark’s mouth) – Statham arms himself to take on the sharks with little more than pluck, spears and a jetski, resulting in true “money shot” cinema that speaks to Wheatley’s knowingness of what type of film he’s truly making.
By no means is Meg 2: The Trench a good movie. But it seems to know this, and if audiences are prepared to surrender to the lunacy, there’s potential fun to be had with a very obvious C-grade creature feature; you just have to sit through far too much unnecessary “plot” to get to it.
TWO STARS (OUT OF FIVE)
Meg 2: The Trench is now screening in Australian theatres.
1 of 6 | Harris Dickinson and Nicole Kidman star in “Babygirl,” in theaters Dec. 25. Photo courtesy of A24
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 22 (UPI) —Babygirl, in theaters Wednesday, is the kind of erotic drama they used to make a lot in the ’80s and ’90s. As such, it is refreshing in 2024, though perhaps still derivative of its genre predecessors.
Romy Mathis (Nicole Kidman) is the founder and CEO of Tensile, a robotics company developing automated drones for warehouses. She is married to a theater director, Jacob (Antonio Banderas), and they have two daughters.
When Tensile begins a mentorship program for interns, Samuel (Harris Dickinson) pushes Romy’s buttons to get one-on-one time with her. His power plays unlock Romy’s repressed sexual desires and they begin an affair.
Playing power games may be inherent to many sexual relationships, so it’s not like one movie invented them, but it’s hard not to think about 9½ Weeks. In that notorious 1986 film, Mickey Rourke played a man who seduces a woman (Kim Basinger) with sex games involving food, spanking and blindfolds.
Advertisement
Still, Babygirl doesn’t play Romy as a cliche of a powerful businesswoman who really likes to be submissive in bed and experience the adrenaline of risking exposure.
Not that the affair compromises Romy’s success, either, although it could if Samuel reports her. She also starts to blur the lines of being submissive in private and at the office, but she doesn’t let it interfere with business decisions.
The love scenes between Kidman and Dickinson are revealing, but not gratuitous. They are vulnerable and uncomfortable rather than titillating.
The way writer-director Halina Reijn approaches consent is interesting and seems realistic. Samuel does insist on consent before continuing, which is a fantastic portrayal of obtaining verbal consent, though the conditions of Romy’s consent remain nebulous.
Romy makes it clear that Samuel’s power games make her uncomfortable. Agreeing to continue while feeling uncomfortable seems like it adds a level of duress.
Advertisement
It’s 80 minutes into the movie before Samuel and Romy even discuss using a safe word, which would give either party, but especially Romy, a way to end a session at her discretion. Yet, this is believable because Romy and Samuel are amateurs at this, so they’re figuring it out.
Samuel may play the dominant role, but he is in many respects just a poser. He is a young intern and very emotional when things don’t go his way.
It seems like Samuel is imitating what he thinks a Casanova would act like, but whenever Romy goes off script, Samuel seems to be at a loss for words. It’s not natural to him, either, though he thinks of some clever workplace games that make Romy play along.
He’s probably watched 9½ Weeks, too, or more likely just read the Wikipedia summary.
The Jacob character is the film’s most stereotypical.
Advertisement
Jacob is a loving husband who just can’t excite Romy. Romy tries to teach him to play games in bed, but Jacob doesn’t enjoy experimenting. It’s odd that a person whose job is in the arts would lack any creativity with his partner, but he’s entitled to have traditional desires, too.
The lack of monogamy is an unmitigated betrayal, as even submissive relationships should respect loyalty unless they’ve discussed and agreed to having an open relationship. The film eventually explores how a couple navigates compatibility, but Romy has to own hers first.
Individual choices the characters make in Babygirl will provoke discussions, and won’t be spoiled in this review. The positive is that the film does show Romy’s growth through the experience.
So, even if a viewer disagrees with part of the journey, the film makes its case for the value of those experiences. That makes it an engaging, provocative film.
Advertisement
Fred Topel, who attended film school at Ithaca College, is a UPI entertainment writer based in Los Angeles. He has been a professional film critic since 1999, a Rotten Tomatoes critic since 2001, and a member of the Television Critics Association since 2012 and the Critics Choice Association since 2023. Read more of his work in Entertainment.
Pottel, directed by Sahith Mothkuri and starring Ajay, Yuvachandra, and Ananya Nagalla in pivotal roles, is a rural drama that delves into the socio-cultural issues of the 1970s. The movie, which captivated audiences with its intriguing title, was released in theaters in October and recently debuted on OTT platforms Amazon Prima and Aha. With music by Sekhar Chandra, the film aims to strike an emotional chord with its thought-provoking narrative.
Plot Summary: The story is set in a remote village during the 1970s, where the powerful Patel family dominates the region. Believing that education empowers people to question authority, the Patels discourage the villagers from pursuing it. Mallanna (Chatrapathi Sekhar), who recognizes the importance of education, dreams of educating his son Gangadharam (Yuvachandra). However, his efforts are thwarted when Patel (Ajay) kills him to maintain control over the village.
The villagers revere a local deity, Balamma, and Patel manipulates their beliefs to suppress dissent. Gangadharam grows up in this oppressive environment, determined to bring change. He marries Bujjamma (Ananya Nagalla), defying her brother and societal norms.
Meanwhile, the village observes a ritual every 12 years, offering a Pottel as a sacrifice to their deity. This time, Gangadharam is tasked with overseeing the ritual. The stakes are high, as failure to perform the ritual properly could have dire consequences for him. Caught between his goal of educating his daughter and empowering the villagers, and the ritualistic traditions, Gangadharam faces immense challenges from Patel. How he overcomes these obstacles forms the crux of the story.
Analysis: The film effectively portrays the socio-political dynamics and superstitions prevalent in rural India during the 1970s. The director highlights the dominance of landlords like the Patels and their efforts to maintain control by keeping the marginalized sections uneducated. The screenplay weaves these themes with clarity, emphasizing the need for education as a tool for empowerment.
Advertisement
The movie also sheds light on superstitions and rituals like animal sacrifices, which were exploited by the powerful to manipulate the weak. The village itself feels like a character in the story, with its landscapes and traditions adding depth to the narrative. The realistic portrayal of the struggles and resilience of rural communities enhances the film’s authenticity.
Performances: Yuvachandra delivers a compelling performance as Gangadharam, capturing the character’s struggle and determination effectively. Ajay excels as the antagonist Patel, portraying the role with authority and menace. Ananya Nagalla impresses with her portrayal of Bujjamma, adding emotional depth to the story. The supporting cast, including Chatrapathi Sekhar, performs within the scope of their roles, contributing to the narrative’s strength.
Technical Aspects: Cinematography by Monish Bhupathiraju stands out, beautifully capturing the rural and forest backdrops, adding an immersive visual quality. Music by Sekhar Chandra complements the narrative well, with both songs and background score enhancing the emotional impact. Editing by Karthik Srinivas ensures a cohesive flow, although some scenes feel slightly stretched. The authentic depiction of rural settings and customs adds to the film’s credibility.
Final Verdict: Pottel is a sincere attempt to address important social issues like education, empowerment, and superstition through a rural narrative. While the film’s pacing and predictability in certain areas might deter some viewers, its emotional core and relevant themes make it a worthwhile watch for those interested in rural dramas.