Tag: ridley scott

Dub’s Take: Gladiator II (2024)

A spoiler-free mini movie review.

4.5 out of 5

Some may read “Gladiator 2” (aka. G2) star and newcomer Paul Mescal’s story about his first-day interaction with director Ridley Scott as a stormtrooper’s royal rejuvenation, and others as the exclamation of a stubborn octogenarian: Mescal was nervous, and Sir Ridley came up to him brandishing a cigar and bellowed, “Your nerves are no good to me!”

I was in the latter camp. I’ve argued before that the 86-year-old’s recent output – in a career that has dipped into every genre other than musicals & animation – has felt like a sell-out when contrasted against the era of “Alien” & “Blade Runner 1″. These new projects have released too close together and are a roller-coaster of inconsistent quality (2021’s “House of Gucci” is 2 stars at most, while the same year’s “The Last Duel” is borderline 5). On top of that, he’s been talking about rehiring creepy-guy & Kremlin-espouser Gérard Depardieu to redub “1492”: a sign the auteur is experiencing some revisionist blues in his autumn years.

But G2 is so good, it made me rethink my pessimistic opinion toward Scott’s oeuvre. Director-of-photography John Mathieson was ‘misquoted’ in an interview, calling Scott “lazy” because he rushes through takes & shoots multi-cam. Surely, Scott has just uncovered the Grand Unifying Theory of filming quick & cheap on the studio’s dime: something the turbulent, cash-hemorrhaged industry post-COVID has been foraging for. All that’s left is Steven Soderbergh editing backstage and your $300-million historical epic will be done in a wisp.

Without taking away the throwback CGI & some script revisions, G2 could be a straight remake of the 2000 original. It’s huge in scope but easy to follow, with enough grue to satisfy my masculine desire, and a motley crew of supporting actors (Peter Mensah; Tim McInnerny; Matt Smith) who made me happy to see working.

The half-star deduction, believe-it-or-not, is predominantly against Denzel Washington. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to see he’s enjoying his semi-retirement, but for a character who’s so integral to the movie’s denouement, Washington plays him superficially guileful: listen to how he pronounces “power” & “politics” at key points. And don’t get me started on that stupid monkey, and the one-too-many speeches at the tail-end.

Otherwise, from a technical perspective, Gladiator 2 is flawless. Film-stock purists should be documenting Scott’s methods for staying on-schedule & on-budget instead of deriding them: it’s the future.

Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Was a “Gladiator” sequel pointless, or justified? Are you impressed that it went from script-to-screen in a year (not including the 23 it took to develop)? Were the flashback clips alienating, or a handy reminder? Was Tim McInnerny the one Denzel was talking about when he said he kissed a guy “full on the lips”? Do you think Peter Mensah’s role will be expanded in the inevitable Director’s Cut release? And, possibly most important, do you think we’re headed for a period when, finally, we won’t have to hear about Pedro Pascal for at least a year, or do you think his MCU casting ensures he’ll dominate our screens into the foreseeable future? Leave you comments below!

Posted on by wd 0

Double-U’s Double-Take: Alien Romulus

A spoiler-lite mini movie re-review.

Leave it to “Alien 2” director-cum-marine biologist James Cameron to tell it like it is: “The trolls will have it that nobody gives a shit … then they see the movie again and go, ‘Oh, okay, excuse me, let me just shut the fuck up right now.’ ”

He was, of course, referencing his first “Avatar”. Some will say that Avatar’s purpose was/is entertainment and, yes, millions of people can’t be wrong. But I’ve reluctantly seen the first film three times, and re-watching it twice over didn’t make me value what Cameron had accomplished any more: it just made me numb to it. I can’t appreciate the pretty picture if it serves a vapid purpose.

While Cameron has the privilege of an unlimited budget & complete creative control, the “Alien” franchise has consistently reinvented itself over the decades, accented by shrinking returns under different directors who, largely, have all have brought something new to the table – but to no lasting conformist appeal.

I have now digested “Alien 7” twice. I used to think seeing any movie more than once at full-price was a sign of constancy (“The Island“) – now I’ve apparently entered the life phase of keeping my mouth shut while I tolerate an afternoon with my curmudgeonly dad and he says he wants to see something.

My greatest detachment this second spell came from how we are seven movies in to this series – not including the various spin-offs – and producers still haven’t indulged audiences with a more thorough study of the xenomorph social structure, or how they go about plastering all that sticky gunk to the walls. Director Fede Alvarez’s team introduces cocooning, but how the Hell was it forged in the span of a few minutes? I would have even taken a cheesy shot of the baby xenomorph spitting black goo at the wall and just have the whole thing appear out of nowhere. A slimy new bit of set-dec of its own accord is not compelling anymore – not in this series.

Rather than existing as its own entity within the ‘Alien cinematic universe’, Romulus is Alvarez pulling a de Sade, using his own blood to scribble all the things he loved about the films that came before onto toilet paper, and all the ways he thought he could make them better.

Click here for the original review.

Poster sourced from impawards.com. Despite trying to go in with no expectations this time around, I still couldn’t help hypothesizing alternate scenarios to the reanimation of Ian Holm: couldn’t they have used Lance Henriksen instead? Wouldn’t Bishop have been the ‘hot, new’ synthetic, going off Romulus’ place in the series chronology? Wouldn’t Henriksen – who’s made a career playing literally anyone in anything – have jumped at the opportunity to approach the role from a more maniacal angle, such as his own Weiland from “AVP”? Could you help picturing the ‘Dream Team’ of Fassbender & Henriksen instead of Jonsson & Not-Holm, or did you even care? Let me know in the comments!

Posted on by wd 0

Jay’s Take: House of Gucci

A spoiler-heavy & deeply-subjective movie review.

Ridley Scott, what are we to do with you? Guy’s movies consistently underperform at the box office and yet he still keeps pumping them out, and studios are happy to let him. Why is that? We’ve all heard the story about when Kevin Spacey was edited out of “All the Money in the World” and Scott reshot his scenes with Christopher Plummer in one week (we also heard about how Michelle Williams was paid less than a HUNDREDTH of what Mark Wahlberg was to come back but, forget that, because Ridley Scott doesn’t have time for your bullshit). The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that his are the ultimate in money-laundering fronts: high-class picture-films with sky-high production values that add legitimacy to the Lizard People’s ever-domineering hold over the global sex-slave market. Or the Big Studios’ hold over the encroaching streaming & independent markets. Plus, he’ll shoot it for 20-bucks on a weekend: fast, AND cheap! Look, any idiot can make an “important” film on his iPhone now, but it takes a serious “auteur” like Scott to make an “important” film with unlimited resources at his disposal and STILL have it turn out to be plodding garbage that no one is interested in paying money to go see.

Continue reading →
Posted on by wd 0