Sometimes, a great performance can elevate an under or over-written character in a film (Hilary Swank in “Ordinary Angels”). Other times, a well-written role – or interpretive slate – is botched by a performer’s over/under-acting, or good suggestions potentially vetoed (Michelle Dockery in “Flight Risk”). And, once in a while, the wrong actor gives a misguided turn as a bland character.
Playing Black Widow may have connoted Scarlett Johansson as the perfect choice for “Jurassic World Rebirth’s” Lara Croft-esque heroine, but she’s ultimately miscast.
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!
And any old creepazoid will make unsolicited comments about your appearance. The most riveting thing about “Venom 3” is the disconnect of seeing actress Juno Temple as an adult: she looks completely different from the little chubby-cheeked girl I remember from 2009’s “Year One” & 2011’s “Killer Joe”. But time moves perpetually forward for everyone and, eventually, we’ll all look the same in a box.
Nope, V3 isn’t great. As much as I was entertained by the other movies in the series (particularly Andy Serkis’ blisteringly-paced second instalment), it was contemptuous of the filmmakers here to assume viewers remember the mythos without a recap, or binge-watching both entries again beforehand.
In this way, V3’s values align more with the MCU than either of Sony’s other entries: a canon-heavy plot is inched along without adding anything significant to the continuity, and – while actor Tom Hardy’s time with the series is indeed over – things are left open for a fourth film, possibly with a female lead. That also means there’s ‘sexy’ symbiotes with boobs here, if you care. I didn’t.
Speaking of Hardy, I don’t remember his Eddie Brock being so stiff. As he’s a co-writer (along with writer/director Kelly Marcel, who penned the other two films), Hardy is probably just visually communicating how ‘in charge’ Venom is over Brock’s body. However, when paired with Eddie’s disquietude, Hardy’s live-action work in V3 degenerates into a mumbling, shuffling mess: he sounds like he’s having more fun with his Venom voice than he looks acting as Eddie. It’s probably the worst performance Tom has ever given.
I like V3’s comedy sidebar in Vegas, and the pacing is surprisingly good here also, mercifully ending at the perfect point – though it’s not as jet-propulsioned as V2. And Juno Temple is a treasure at any age.
But here’s a more-kosher critical opinion: Venom 3 was pulled out of the oven too early, or maybe shouldn’t have been made at all. How many times have I said that this year? Too many.
Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Are you a fan of Sony’s “Venom” series, or do you, too, think it’s a series of diminishing returns? Would you buy tickets to a fourth film led by live-action Juno Temple & Clark Backo? Are you disappointed there’s no word yet whether Venom will make an appearance alongside the MCU’s Spider-Man? Let us know in the comments below!
In its scant ninety-minute running time, “Candyman 4” tries to be:
BOOM: a direct sequel to the original 1992 movie; BAM: a reimagining of the central villain & his lore (fans of late Tony Todd should look elsewhere: he cameos for 30 seconds as a visual bookend); C: a commentary on gentrification & a nouveau generation of Black yuppies; 4: a satire of the Chicago arts scene; – full-on body horror à la 1986’s “The Fly”; a rallying cry for ‘Black Lives Matter’;
and more I may have missed. It even employs a shadow-puppet aesthetic for its flashbacks in a quirky touch that wouldn’t be out of place in a Wes Anderson joint.
Phew! It’s a lot, but Candyman 4 isn’t done yet. Its themes draw parallels to “Pontypool”: a 2008 Canadian horror where miscommunication itself breeds zombies. C4 recontextualizes Todd’s Daniel Robitaille so that all instances of White-on-Black violence in Cabrini-Green fall under the discourse of ‘The Candyman’.
It’s a fascinating narrative pivot: probably the contribution of consistently-creative producer/co-writer Jordan Peele. The film is also wickedly shot, and certain set pieces independent of one-another do play well (the opening titles; the murder of two gallery owners; Yahya Abdul-Mateen II’s Anthony interacting with a reflection).
However, in corking Todd’s time with the series, C4 spoils the wine. Partial blame falls on director Nia DaCosta’s pacing, which recalls the extended takes & quiet character pensiveness of the most leisurely, self-aware 10-episode streaming series when she should be hitting us with the goods fast & hard to justify the short duration.
Other demerits go to poor Abdul-Mateen II who – between this, “Matrix 4”, and the DCEU reset – may have a hard time finding franchise work moving forward: his is an uninspired performance of a derivative hero’s journey.
For all the posturing of the neurotic, unlikeable one-percenter protagonists at the heart of the protracted first act, it, too, contributes nothing new to the discussion around the periodicity of racialized violence. Since C4 seems comfortable dropping references to the first film without context, viewers unfamiliar with the original will tell immediately where this story’s motives lie in its most meandering sections, and the heavy-handed finale.
Candyman 4 is guilty of overextending, but it gets a half-point for the chutzpah it takes to swing this hard and miss.
Poster sourced from impawards.com. The film’s script left me with plenty of leftover questions: why did Sherman choose to stay in the complex when he knew he was being targeted as a pedophile? Why did it take Anthony so long to go to the hospital with the bug bite, let alone have it noticed by his live-in girlfriend? What did underlining his father’s suicide have to do with anything? In the high school bathroom, why wasn’t the Black girl blamed for the deaths of the White girls, keeping in theme with the rest of the story? Have your say in the comments below!
You’ve heard of Disney animators slipping naughty easter-eggs into their features. These were blink-and-you’ll-miss-‘em moments you’d catch on repeat viewings: there was no way anything more than a few milliseconds of indiscretion could make it passed pre-2000 executives; a ratings board; test audiences; and any other stop-gaps preceding a theatrical release.
But Disney doesn’t ride today’s market solo anymore, and – speaking generally – the competition is becoming more shameless for your dollar. This isn’t to say modern family movies are inundated with sex & violence: I’m not that out of touch. But you can crack a specially-worded joke in a diplomatic way and still keep your coveted PG rating.
Case-in-point: “Despicable Me 4″‘s Poppy. As voiced by Joey King (who just headlined Netflix’s “Uglies”), Poppy is a bratty, overprivileged redhead, sporting a skirt; braces; freckles; and a lisp, and who blackmails & uses Gru… for a heist! Poppy’s age isn’t explicitly stated but I trust my ten-second Google search that labelled her 14.
King’s voice work is chipper and snotty: just how it needs to be. But Poppy doesn’t speak until three-scenes-in, after she’s already thrown Gru knowing glances that communicate, as per the plot, that she knows his secret identity. But all I saw in these lingering shots were Alicia Silverstone from “The Crush” or Drew Barrymore from “Poison Ivy”: villains from a special androcentristic subsection of 90’s erotic thrillers that revolved around psychotic, hypersexual adolescent homewreckers.
My post-secondary discipline was live-action film – not animation. The closest my practice ever got was having to re-record dialogue when a covert HVAC system went off in the background of a shot. In that case, the intention of the scene had already been established. We just did the audio again: somewhere quiet, and hopefully to the same level of emotion as the video. What I want to know then is whether DM4’s visual creatives told King about their non-verbal goals for Poppy before she recorded the dialogue, or if King found out what they did at the premiere while everyone around her made the same lewd joke about what they were seeing.
There’s no way an innocent kid in the audience is detecting a sexual undercurrent in their new Minions movie. That’s just for us mature adult credit card holders.
Poster sourced from impawards.com. If you even care at this point, the overall movie was fine: the Minions do their thing; voice-leads Steve Carell & Will Ferrell do their thing; and there’s a madcap energy that keeps the pace moving even when the comedy fell on the ears of the wrong demographic. If I had to give it a proper star rating, I’d throw it a 2 out of 5. Anything to add to the conversation? That’s what the comment box below is for!
theory of a daskeman 