Starring Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger, Lior Raz, Derek Jacobi, with Connie Nielsen and Denzel Washington
Advertisement
Classification 14A; 148 minutes
Opens in theatres November 22
Hail Denzel Washington. He understood the assignment, as they say.
Washington, decked out in flowing gold lined robes and oversized jewels, brings his swagger and more to Ridley Scott’s gleefully inaccurate ancient Rome in Gladiator II, a creaky and bloated sequel that mostly falls flat whenever it strays from the Training Day star’s orbit.
Like Oliver Reed in the original, Washington is playing a calculated slave trader with a shady past. As Macrinus, he scans for talent among ravagedbodies, those who can hack each other to bits in the Colosseum but also be his “instrument.” The man’s hiding ulterior motives. Washington has a field day teasing them out.
Advertisement
He dances between lounging and lurching forward, his every posture, movement and gesture filled with intention. While so many of his peers in the cast feel like pawns reciting monologues, and often bellowing them out amidst the movie’s noise as if that would add impact, Washington negotiates with each line, like he’s searching for the music and the surprising notes of meaning in each word. He’s putting on a show. And the audience is going to love him for it.
Showmanship is of course a core tenet to the original Gladiator. Scott’s swords-and-sandals Spartacus-lite throwback, which won best picture at the 2001 Oscars, was all about playing up the theatricality in violence and even politics. Those thrilling battle sequences in the arena, with Russell Crowe’s Maximus leading diamond formations against chariots and swinging swords around with a grandiosity, looked incredible. The movie built its whole narrative around what can be achieved not just by feeding an audience’s bloodlust, but indulging it with artistry, while resoundingly asking, “Are you not entertained?”
This time around, Scott throws a lot more in the arena. CGI rhinos, apes, sharks and warships take up space in his digitally re-rendered Colosseum, but he’s at a loss with what to do with them. It’s just a bunch of pixels at war with each other, with human stakes left to bleed out.
Finding an anchor in Gladiator II’s stakes is also kind of hard since the movie undoes so much of what we were invested in as far as Maximus’s achievements in the first film, which ended with him killing Joaquin Phoenix’s prophetically Trump-like Caesar and handing control of Rome to the senate so the people can rule.
And yet here we are, finding Rome under the control of two new emperors, twins played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger, who basically split Phoenix’s incredible performance in two. How they came into power despite Maximus’s best efforts is barely addressed. It’s especially baffling because the two come off as a pair of clownish puppets. One of them holds conversations with a monkey.
Advertisement
Never mind the way Scott flouts historical accuracy – like a newspaper appearing in 200 A.D. before the invention of the printing press. Gladiator II’s betrayal of the original movie’s satisfying conclusion is even more egregious. The sequel even contradicts Maximus’s final words, which I’ll leave you to revisit.
At this point I should warn you, if you want to see Gladiator II completely unspoiled, don’t continue reading. Though if you’ve seen recent trailers, or even googled who Normal People star Paul Mescal is playing, you already know what I’m about to write.
The actor, so tender and affecting in smaller films like Charlotte Wells’s sublime Aftersun and Andrew Haigh’s All Of Us Strangers, is in his beefcake-era playing a grown up Lucius, the young child of Connie Nielsen’s Lucilla. His life was in peril in the earlier movie because he was heir to his murderous uncle Commodus’s throne.
In Gladiator II, we meet Lucius in Numidia, a warrior battling the Roman empire, living under an assumed identity after he had been squirreled away in hiding from his family and lineage. His return to Rome, as a vengeful gladiator seeking retribution for his dead wife, rejigs the plot from the first movie, with the Maximus role now shared between Mescal’s Lucius and Pedro Pascal’s war-weary general Marcus.
Mescal and Pascal are both fine; though they often seem too overwhelmed by the tired plot machinations to really make an impression beyond how fine they both look in Roman garb. Mescal is especially distracting, his blue eyes piercing through all the dirt mingling with sweat on his face. And yes, it’s easy to be distracted by these details in a movie that never finds its footing as a spectacle or any conviction in the emotions its storytelling is supposed to conjure; except of course, when Denzel is in the room.
Advertisement
In the interest of consistency across all critics’ reviews, The Globe has eliminated its star-rating system in film and theatre to align with coverage of music, books, visual arts and dance. Instead, works of excellence will be noted with a critic’s pick designation across all coverage. (Television reviews, typically based on an incomplete season, are exempt.)
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.
1 of 5 | Robbie Williams appears behind the scenes of his biopic “Better Man,” in theaters Dec. 25. Photo courtesy of Paramount
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 21 (UPI) — Robbie Williams is the latest subject of a musician biopic. Better Man, in theaters Dec. 25, takes such a wild approach that it easily stands apart from films like Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody.
Williams got the performing bug at age 9 in a school performance of The Pirates of Penzance. As a teenager, he auditioned to be in a boy band and landed a spot in Take That.
Williams went solo after friction with the band but still struggled to write original lyrics. By Better Man‘s accounts, Williams had a similar cinematic trajectory as Johnny Cash or Freddie Mercury.
However, Better Man represents Williams as a talking monkey. Director Michael Gracey explains in a pre-film video that he took Williams literally when the singer called himself a performing monkey.
Advertisement
So this is a Planet of the Apes visual effect. It’s Williams’ voice but Jonno Davies performing the reference footage, along with a few other performers for elaborate dance scenes.
The film never gets used to having a monkey as the lead character, a real-life figure who is still alive at that. It never ceases to be off-putting, especially when Williams sings and dances elaborate choreography, and that is part of the film’s power.
Now, when Williams goes through the stereotypical spiral into drugs and alcohol, watching a monkey recreate those scenes is avant-garde art. The visual effect captures Williams’ charm and emotional turmoil, so it’s not a joke.
It only becomes more shocking the more famous Williams gets. Once he starts sporting revealing dance outfits, even more fur is on display.
Advertisement
It’s not even a movie star embodying Williams. There’s neither the real Williams nor an actor’s persona to attach to the film, removing yet another layer of artifice but replacing it with an even more jarring one.
As if one monkey isn’t daring enough, Williams’ inner demons are also visualized as monkeys. So many scenes boast monkey Williams staring at disapproving monkeys too.
Other biopic traditions include a scene where Williams sings a rough demo of his future hit “Something Beautiful” and confronting his absent father (Steve Pemberton) over abandoning him. The biopic tradition of showing photos of the real Williams during the credits actually breaks the spell when audiences can see he was not an actual monkey.
The monkey is the boldest leap Better Man takes but it is not the only one. A disco ball effect lights vast outdoor locations, and the film includes a climactic action scene.
Musical numbers are dynamic, including a romp through the streets of London in an unbroken take. A duet between Williams and lover Nicole Appleton (Raechelle Banno) evokes Astaire and Rogers.
Advertisement
The film embodies Williams’ irreverent spirit, as if a drama starring a monkey could ever be reverent. In his narration, Williams is self-deprecating, and some of the dance numbers blatantly injure pedestrians in their choreography.
The new arrangements of Williams’ songs add dimensions to his hits.
Better Man is bold cinema. The audacity alone is worth celebrating, but the fact that it works is a miracle.
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.