Wicked: Part 1 (2024)

 

The above is the trailer for "Wicked" which was released six months ago. If you don't see any indication that this is just the opening film in a two part release, that's because there is no indication offered here. Until a week before the release in November, I had no idea that the film would be an incomplete presentation of the Broadway phenomena. Oh, and by the way, "Part One" as it will now be referred to, is two hours and forty minutes. The play on the stage runs 2 hours forty-five minutes. So am I supposed to believe that the next film released next year will be a two and a half hour presentation of five minutes of material? This movie is as padded as could be and it is a deliberate money grab, unlike some other works in the not too distant past ("The Deathly Hallows" needed to be two films). 

I have no interest in dissing all the theater kids who have worshiped and been inspired by the Broadway musical, but this was a big shrug of the shoulders for me.  I have no idea why this would inspire more devotion than dozens of other Broadway presentations. I have never seen the play, so I can't really comment on it. Maybe the stagecraft is what makes it work. Maybe the actors and dancers on stage are choregraphed in a way that brings the story to life. This film did not do any of that for me. It is pretty to look at at times, but hardly different from a number of other good looking films (most Wes Anderson movies would give this a run for the money). Of course my opinion is moot because this movie opened to huge box office and is expected to run through the holidays, becoming a cash cow for Universal Studios. Expect feature attractions at the theme parks in the next couple of years. 

Reimaging the story of a film from the perspective of the villain may very well have been invented by the author of the book that the musical is based on. We have had a number of these sorts of things in the last few years, "Maleficent" comes to mind immediately. Maybe it works, but often at the expense of the original story. I can't say exactly where this is headed, since I am unfamiliar with the play, but it sure looks like the Wizard is getting dumped on, and Dorothy will be reimagined as a selfish brat who broke the heart of poor  Elphaba. I guess we will see next year (if I can bring myself to endure the story again). 

As for this film, it starts off in telling the Wicked Witch of the Wests origin story, with drunken infidelity. That sure seems like a far cry from the family friendly confines of the original books. Cynthia Eviro plays the green offspring of an illicit affair (there is a hint of something here that may or may not be significant), and she sings well but has to play a bullied child who is defiant yet hurting on the inside. Ariana Grande is Galinda, a spoiled child who expects only the best treatment and has to learn some humility. At first they are rivals, then friends, and then estranged compatriots of the wizarding world (Galinda having no powers noy withstanding). 

There are nearly a dozen songs, none of which is particularly memorable outside of the context of their presentation. "Popular" works because of the situation the characters are in, not because of its melody. There are some clever lyrics but most of it is narrative stuck on a tune that barely registers. "Defying Gravity" works the same way, the lyrics spell out a conundrum for the two leads, but it is only interesting because of the visualization that goes along with it. The best number, both thru musicality and visualization was "Dancing Through Life", as it is a turning point in the relationship between the two women. 

The cast dance numbers are just not very interesting as they are presented here. Director John Chu may have a good touch with humor and relationships, but the staging of the dance numbers is just not filmed in an interesting way. I enjoyed the dancing in "Anna and the Apocalypse" more than this, and that film was not nearly as intricate or expensive. Maybe it is the hip hop style of some of the background dancers that just does not appeal to me. 

Story wise, the film has a lot of paths it starts down, and maybe they will pay off. If the stage play really deserved a six hour treatment though, it might have been better to do this as a limited series. Then you could go somewhere with characters like Nessarose, Boq, Pfannee and even the Wizard. This movie definitely needed more Jeff Goldblum. The Wizard is a central figure who is more opaque here than in the original film. 

I am not saying it is a bad movie, I'm just saying it wasn't for me. I can't quite grasp the enthusiasm with which it is being embraced. I'm a film fan and a musical fan, but this feels like it is made for theater consumption only. I'm a sentimental man, but something bad has happened. What is this feeling? Complete indifference.  

Gladiator II (2024)

 

A sequel to "Gladiator", the Best Picture winner from 2000, was considered almost immediately, although frankly there was absolutely no need for it. The story of General Maximus, a Spaniard in charge of Rome's Northern Army, turned slave and then Gladiator/Rebel/Avenger, was complete in the Russell Crowe film. Director Ridley Scott, did not receive the award that year for directing, and has subsequently failed to be honored for that skill ever since. Maybe it is the indignity of having the film you were responsible for be so revered and awarded, while you have to bask in the glow from the sidelines, that makes someone want to go back to the same well again. Scott's talents are still there, but I doubt that "Gladiator II" will be raking in the laurels like it's predecessor. It is a strong action film with some marvelously assembled scenes, but as a drama, it feels like an unsatisfying second helping. 

One of the biggest reasons that "GII" isn't up to snuff is that it lacks the charisma element that made the first film so memorable. Actors Paul Mescal, who plays the now adult Lucious, and Pedro Pascal, who plays a General supposedly mentored by Maximus, are insufficient replacements for Crowe. Maximus was a force of nature in pursuit of his vengeance. Mescal seems to be simply riding the wave of the vengeance theme rather than driving it. Pascal is a nearly superfluous character. He has a terrific arena scene, but outside of the combat sequences at the start of the film and his Coliseum moment, his character barely resonates. Connie Nielson returns to the story as Lucilla, the mother of Lucious, ex-lover of Maximus and wife of Pascal's General Acacius. In the twenty years since Maximus died in defeating Commodus, Rome has been static. The popular revolution never appeared and it seems that the backlash forced Lucilla to send her son into exile, in fear of twin Emperors Geta and Caracalla. Rome is still dominated by an elite, the populous is sated by games in the arena, and war drains the resources of the empire more than the conquests they acquire.   

So we get two heroes to replace Maximus, and two Emperors to replace Commodus, and it is still not enough to electrify the story line. That's where Denzel Washington comes in. He is Macrinus, a wealth citizen, providing men and weapons to the battles in the Coliseum, but also plotting to gain power while staying close to the two megalomaniac Emperors.  He does his best to replace Joaquin Phoenix and Oliver Reed simultaneously.  He needs to do that because the story beats of the two films are essentially the same. There is an opening battle, three subsequent arena confrontations, and a climactic confrontation at the end. The weakness is the thread that holds those pieces together. We know almost nothing of the political environment in which the story takes place. The twin rulers are mostly cartoon characters. Macinus, is a cypher, deliberately vague on what he hopes to accomplish and why. 

The strength of the film is in the action sequences themselves. Mescal is solid in the first arena combat scene where he is pitted along with fellow captives against a troop of baboons. When he finally gets to the Coliseum, he fights a rhinoceros riding cowboy of a gladiator. It may have some historical validity but it looks like a scene from a Ray Harryhausen film. The tigers in the first film were a threat, the rhino feels like a prop. There is a spectacular water battle in a flooded arena floor, that jacks up the danger by adding sharks. That was maybe the most improbable moment in the film, although it looked great and offered a little bit of fun. Acacius and Lucilla are featured in an additional sequence set in the Coliseum, and that segment of the film looks great but is emotionally less than it needs to be because we have had so little development of the two in this film up to that moment.  

There is a final combat sequence and it is staged well, although it looks like it was spontaneous in some parts, the shots clearly indicate that it was well planned and not improvisational. Whereas in the original film, we have anticipated the final showdown between the two leads,  and really want that moment of catharsis that comes when the villain gets what is coming to them, this story line feels perfunctory and is never driven by the passions of the two combatants. Lucious and Macrinas are in conflict as a result of circumstances, rather than the machinations of a revenge plot.

As usual, the effects work is strong and the editing of the film is spectacular. "Gladiator II" is a good looking action film that strains for the level of the first film but falls short. The action set pieces can't quite overcome the story weaknesses, which require some retconning to pull off and a big gob of suspension of disbelief to make it all work. Sometimes the leftovers can make an enjoyable meal, but they can' repeat that first plate of food experience.