Film Review: Gladiator 2

Long, messy, violent, and exceedingly silly, Gladiator 2 is a still an entertaining sword-and-sandals epic. 

Has anyone checked in on Ridley Scott lately? The man is 86 years old, and to quote the musical Hamilton, "Why are you [directing] like you're running out of time?". Fresh off of last year's bloated and deeply strange Napoleon, Scott's Gladiator 2 asks the question, what if we remade the original but added CGI monkeys and turned the acting quality down by about 50%? 

Before we dive in, remember that the original Gladiator won FIVE Academy Awards in 2001, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Russell Crowe), and Best Supporting Actor (Joaquin Phoenix). The movie had a chokehold on the American public, which I think may be attributable to the brief love affair we also had with Russell Crowe, who from 1999 to 2001 received three consecutive Academy Award nominations. 

First, a brief and fascinating detour into how we got this sequel

Soon after the success of Gladiator, plans were quickly made to start drafting a follow-up script. Ideas changed hands several times until Nick Cave — yes, that Nick Cave — was commissioned to draft one. It involved Maximus leaving purgatory and being sent back in time by the Roman gods to kill Jesus Christ and prevent the inevitable spread of Christianity. Maximus then gets cursed to live forever and fights in major battles for the next 2,000 years, which is essentially just a rip-off of the Casca: Eternal Mercenary series of novels by Barry Sadler. 

Surprising no one, this Cave script didn't go anywhere (Stephen Spielberg actually put the final kibosh on it!) and the idea of sequel dwindled for a decade until Scott revisited the idea and finally settled on David Scarpa, who he worked with on Napoleon, to write script for Gladiator 2. 

Wait wait, I also have to talk about Ridley Scott for a second

Scott is perhaps the only director I can think of who, for nearly 50 years, has made countless successful films with no overarching directorial signature. Wes Anderson, Hitchcock, Tarantino, De Palma, Burton — odds are you can name some recurring themes or styles in their oeuvres. This holds true even if you're not a real fan! That's how indelible directing style can be. 

Meanwhile, Scott is over here bouncing around from Alien to Thelma and Louise to GI Jane to Gladiator to the Martian to House of Gucci. The only thing I can think of is that the man is dedicated to creating compelling stories on-screen. His movies are very likable, for lack of a better word. They're also compulsively watchable. In his old age, Scott's also gotten very, very good at pure spectacle. Even though Napoleon is a bit of a slog, the sheer scope of the battle scenes alone are worth watching. 

Okay, on to the plot as best I understand it

Maximus is dead, to begin with. But it turns out Lucius, Lucilla's son (Lucilla is also the daughter of the former emperor Marcus Aurelius and was the sister of Commodus), is actually the son of Maximus. After the events of the first film, she sends young Lucius off to what appears to be Egypt for safe keeping. But even that's not safe, so he eventually flees to another part of northern Africa and lives as a simple farmer/warrior, taking the alias Hanno. 

Rome eventually comes calling, however, in the form of an army commanded by Acacius (Pedro Pascal). During the battle, Lucius's wife is killed. This is meant to evoke the same sort of gravitas as Maximus' entire family dying, but it just doesn't hit the same, though he swears vengeance on all of Rome and General Acacius in particular.

Lucius is taken as prisoner, and ends up fighting before the slaver/gladiator trader/plotter Acrinus, who promises Lucius the head of Acacius if he keeps fighting for him in the Colosseum.

Meanwhile, there are two evil twin-emperors of Rome, Geta and Caracalla. Hanno/Lucius fights his way through many battles in the Colosseum, including baboons, rhinos, sharks, and the Preatorian guard. His mom, Lucilla, realizes who he is. Also her boyfriend is Acacius, and turns out he's a actually good guy who hates what Rome has become and is planning to overthrow the twins. He gets caught and captured, however. Lucius discovers this and takes up his mantle and organizes the Roman troops upon the eventual death of the twins. 

You know what, none of this makes sense as I write it down. It's too complicated, and for no good reason. You had to be there. The gist: a man is angry and he has lots of fights. Lucius is actually the secret son of Maximus and Lucilla (which is odd considering how much Maximus tells us he loves his wife and OTHER son in the first movie). There are weird, debauched, and scheming politicians in Rome. A monkey gets named Consul. There's sharks in the Colosseum. Paul Mescal has incredible thigh muscles. That's all you really know to know.

The things that work

Now's a good time to remind you that, despite its flaws, I had a blast while watching this — it's entertaining, gruesome, sprawling, and visually stunning. Seeing vast legions spread out upon the plains outside of Rome was incredible. 

But is this movie at all accurate to Roman history? Of course not! I like to think of it as historical fantasy. You take bits of inspiration from the past — many of these characters existed, it's true — and then just say, "fuck, it we ball!" It's a fun world to visit if you can get past the glaring anachronisms in every other scene.

The standout performances are Denzel Washington (he steals every scene he's in, and his acting is so sublimely natural and devious that it's almost awe-inspiring to watch) and Joseph Quinn (he matches Joaquin Phoenix's demented emperor vibe to a T). They are unhinged, wild, and perfectly cast. 

The opening naval battle/attack scene is breathtaking, and you really feel the deplorable might of Rome's imperial ambitions. Every fight scene, in fact, is superbly choreographed, and the foley editor really put in overtime on this one. It's a loud, crunchy, bone-crushing, blood-spurty feast for the ears.

The things that don't

Guys, I just don't like Paul Mescal. He doesn't have the charisma or charm to pull off main character energy for a role like this. Also, his character spends half of the movie resisting Rome and rejecting his heritage, then in one single scene he reconciles with his mother to reclaim his birth right. This, in my opinion, is harder to believe than sharks in the Colosseum (I say this in my head in the same cadence as the "they did surgery on a grape" meme).

And while I do love Pedro Pascal, he is stiff in his performance of General Acacius. I was, frankly, shocked by this. He's usually a great actor, but I suppose wooden dialogue like "No...more...war" doesn't exactly give him much to work with.

Finally, there are CGI baboons in Gladiator 2 that look like something out of the Hercules TV show from the 90s. I'm guessing they blew most of the budget on eye makeup and 10,000 cloaks.

Final verdict

It's a fun romp in the theater, but it's not a serious movie by any means. I will probably watch it again for the sheer epic-ness of it.

--

The Math

Baseline Score: 6/10

Bonuses: Denzel Washington puts on a hell of a performance, and is pure gold. Joseph Quinn as the evil Emperor Geta impresses. Production design, as per usual, is breathtaking, and the Scott manages to capture a new look at the breadth and scope of Ancient Rome.

POSTED BY: Haley Zapal, new NoaF contributor and lawyer-turned-copywriter living in Atlanta, Georgia. A co-host of Hugo Award-winning podcast Hugo, Girl!, she posts on Instagram as @cestlahaley. She loves nautical fiction, growing corn and giving them pun names like Timothee Chalamaize, and thinking about fried chicken.

Review: Napoleon

Ridley Scott's historical epic is wildly weird, ribald, and absolutely breathtaking at times

Director Ridley Scott — 85 years old! — is known for his far-ranging career in sci-fi and historical epics: Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, The Martian, The Last Duel, House of Gucci.

Adding to his pantheon is Napoleon, which isn't a biopic in the traditional sense, isn't saccharinely grandiose and inspiring, and isn't necessarily all accurate. Does this take away from how enjoyable it is? Absolutely not.

Scott spares no expense in his grand set pieces occupying locations from the French Revolution to Egypt to Russia, and he sweeps thousands of soldiers (both real and CGI) across the plains of Europe like so many chessmen on a board. He's a master of his craft, and when I heard the first whispers that this movie was coming out, I knew I'd be there with (tri-color) bells on.

A brief detour to my love of all things French

Before we get started, I'd like to tell you a little about myself and my interest in the Little Corporal. (I found myself in the theatre wondering why every other person in the theatre was so interested in a three-hour movie about a 19th-century French general). I know why I was there, why is that grandma!?!

I have always been a history buff, and I have a degree in French literature. One thing about me—if there's a period piece set in Paris, I'm gonna see it. I've also been slowly reading the epic 900-page doorstop of a biography Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts.

Our general wrote tens of thousands of letters during his life, and though I'm only 200-ish pages in, it became immediately apparent that this man was wild. More emotional than I ever imagined, brilliant, capable, and utterly obsessed with his empress, Josephine. He was, in a word, emo.

Ridley Scott has stated that he didn't have to read a book like this—that it was the poor scriptwriter's job to condense the life of one of the most famous men in history into a few short hours. The Napoleon that Scott chooses to bring to life is fascinating and weird, and the film itself has a wildly strange tone that I guarantee no one will see coming.

For this post, I'm going to structure my discussion in 5 exclamations/short phrases, along with the caveat that it's a movie worth seeing. It's just not that movie you may be expecting.

Horny

Napoleon is really two movies: The first, about a Corsican general's successes and failures on the battlefield. The other is a psycho-sexual drama between Napoleon and Josephine. 

The relationship is ribald and coarse and full of machinations à la Dangerous Liaisons. The movie follows this schema literally, too—you'll see an epic battle, then it'll cut to Nap & Jo on a couch, having a weird and tense conversation about how she never writes. 4 years will pass, another battle, another couch, rinse and repeat. There are awkward, stilted love scenes, and it's never quite clear if Josephine actually likes her emperor, though she definitely plays his games. Unfortunately, they didn't include my favorite bit of Napoleon trivia: in a letter to her, he once said, "Will arrive in 3 days. Don't wash." Man was into some pheromones!

SO interesting

Despite the weird tone of this movie, it's nearly impossible to take your eyes off the screen. I found myself waiting nearly two hours to sneak away and use the bathroom because I didn't want to miss anything. The highlight of the film is the Battle of Austerlitz, in which Napoleon beats the Austrian army with surprise tactics and then uses artillery to chase them off the ice of the frozen lake. 

The scenes where men and horses fall into the water are brilliant and artistic. There are things in Napoleon that I definitely have never seen before, and that's wild considering director Scott is nearing 90. There is also absolutely brutal gore that makes Saving Private Ryan seem like Hogan's Heroes.

Spectacular costumes

Is there anything cooler than the wild colors and extravagant tailoring of a French general? Methinks not, and this movie was a visual feast for folks like me. Ther are even impeccable small details, like the tricolor sashes wrapped around the waists of soldiers, signifying their loyalty to the republic. 

The women's dresses are equally as stunning; there's just (surprise) not as many women in the film. By the ending, Napoleon has switched to a khaki-colored overcoat that looks for all the world like the one Inspector Gadget wears. It works.

Empty, in a weird way, especially for a grandiose epic

Joaquin Phoenix was a strange choice for this role, and I'm not sure where he got his direction to play Napoleon like he does. One would assume Scott, but who knows? His portrayal is cold, weird, and surprisingly lacking in any sort of emotion. The real Napoleon suffered not from a Napoleon complex (he was actually of normal height) but from a Corsican complex: his family was Corsican, not French, and he didn't come from lofty riches. We get none of this in the movie, only his obsession with Josephine—which is definitely true, but this movie makes it seem nearly completely one-sided.

Also missing from this depiction of Napoleon is what made him a cult of personality. We see a brief glimpse of him charming his soldiers (including when he returns from exile), but that's about it. He doesn't seem like a leader, in the George Washington / Horatio Nelson / Alexander the Great type way.

Finally, I know a movie can only contain so much, but Napoleon speaks only to his success on the battlefield. In reality, he was also a keen civil organizer who introduced incredible public works, an entire civil code that would go on to influence law all across the globe, and wide-ranging and surprisingly liberal religious & educational reform.

Funnier than anyone will expect it to be

Most movies have moments of comic relief. Napoleon has yawning chasms of absurdity that crack open a scene, taking you out of the history and into a different place. I found myself laughing out loud at least a dozen times—sometimes I was the only one, though. There's one scene where he's rebuffed by the English foreign minister and Napoleon, in a fit of rage, screams something akin to "You think you're so great because you HAVE BOATS!!" It's true, the French navy was nothing compared to the ocean-ruling power of the English navy, but the way he spits out his frustration is nothing but funny.

On top of the strange one-liners ("Destiny has led me to this lamp chop"), Phoenix's performance is just so wildly weird that you can't help laugh every now and again. He's very serious, and he does a good job; you just have to wonder for the entire movie what he was trying to convey. 

Lots have been said about how the film was trimmed down. Speaking for myself, I can't wait for the director's cut that will tip it into 4-hour territory.

POSTED BY: Haley Zapal, NoaF contributor and lawyer-turned-copywriter living in Atlanta, Georgia. A co-host of Hugo Award-winning podcast Hugo, Girl!, she posts on Instagram as @cestlahaley. She is an avid Francophile and once had to announce a moratorium on gifts featuring the Eiffel Tower or art featuring croissants because her family was going overboard.

Microreview [film]: Alien: Covenant

In space, no one can hear you groan. 

Alien is one of my all-time favorite films, something I watch a couple times a year. It never gets old, because it's basically perfect. The science fiction is good, the horror is good--and they are really well integrated. That's rare in film. Most of the time, "science fiction" is just a backdrop for stories that are, in essence, horror or action films. But with Alien, the science fictional and the horrifying are equal partners. The keystone, if you will, is the discovery of an alien species on a distant planet--and the covert decision by Weyland Enterprises, owner of the Nostromo, to exploit--and if possible weaponize--the discovery. Then shit hits the fan.

In 2012, director Ridley Scott returned to the franchise he had launched with the prequel Prometheus, which tells the story of a starship crew seeking out the "Engineers," an alien species you'll recognize from the crash site at the beginning of Alien. Along with being terrible, Prometheus had the ignoble goal of literalizing the subtle metaphor represented by the Engineers in the 1979 film. There, the crashed spaceship--far more advanced than anything possessed by humans--warned of hubris in the face of the invasive xenomorph species. But, in Prometheus, the Engineers are transformed into blah blah kill the humans something something.

Alien: Covenant goes one step further in undermining the genius of Alien--this time by transforming the xenomorphs from reflection of the quintessentially human assumptions of mastery of nature into the science project of a mad android. To which all I can say is:

What.

The.

Fuck.

I'll never for the life of me understand why Hollywood directors can't leave well enough alone--like Han shooting first or making the Death Star vulnerability the deliberate ploy of a guilty engineer rather than embodiment of an empire's megalomania and arrogance. But this is far worse than those examples. At least Rogue One was a good film.

Alien: Covenant is not. After the first 45 minutes or so, it is entirely predictable, tedious and by the numbers rehash of every other monster survival film you've ever seen, including all previous entries in the Alien series. And as much as I love Michael Fassbender, David the android sucks.

This is made worse by the fact that, for the first 45 minutes, Alien: Covenant teases that it might actually be a pretty good science fiction film. There is real drama, related to the dangers of spaceflight, which is far more compelling than the sub-AVP crap it degenerates into. (At least AVP was funny!)

And so Alien: Covenant made me realize a few things. One, that there will never be another good Alien film, and certainly none directed by Ridley Scott. Two, that directors and film studios need to realize that science fiction is compelling in and of itself, but in order for that to be the case, "science fiction" needs to be more than just a setting for other kinds of films. That's not a dig at sci-fi/horror; it is a dig at a film industry that can't conceive of the sci-fi without the horror.


The Math

Baseline Assessment: 3/10.

Bonuses: +1 for a good first 45 minutes or so; +1 for Danny McBride was actually pretty good in a non-comedic role.

Penalties: -1 for but it was garbage from that point on; -1 for revising canon in a way that undermines some of the best themes of the original.

Nerd Coefficient: 3/10. "Very little good I can say about this."


***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a Feather founder/administrator, since 2012.

Greatest Sci-Fi Movie of All Time Tournament - Results!

"Hey, but everybody wins, right? Or me, I guess. I win.."

Guys, are you sure?

The smart money — and by that I mean the opinion expressed by most people who commented on this tournament on- and offline — said that this tournament was a race to second, because after early rounds it seemed clear that The Empire Strikes Back was a lock for the number one spot. But, as they say in actual sports, that's why they play the games.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Greatest Sci-Fi Movie of All Time, as decided by the Nerds of a Feather readers who participated in this tournament (and proud we are of all of them):

BLADE RUNNER

I wonder what it was. See, Star Wars has an unequaled fan base. But many readers, guests, and commentators on this blog seem to believe that the Star Wars films aren't, in fact, science fiction. More like "fantasy in space." Could be. As our own English Scribbler said to me, maybe the purists won. But one thing is damn certain, we all win when we watch Roy Batty's final scene.



Posted by Vance K — who wishes he could see anything off the shoulder of Orion.