Gladiator II

Posted on November 20, 2024 at 6:25 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong bloody violence
Profanity:	Fierce language
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended, intense, and graphic violence, swords, animal attacks, characters injured and killed, disturbing images
Date Released to Theaters:	November 22, 2024

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is GLADIATOR-2-121124-MCDGLTW_PA010.jpg-1024x768.webp — Gladiator II copyright 2024 Paramount

“Gladiator II” looks magnificent. Denzel Washington effortlessly steals every scene he is in and all but winks at us to show how much he is enjoying it. But the script is weak and too repetitive , the movie is too long, and the fight scenes, no matter how staged, just get numbing after a while. When I saw it, the audience was so disconnected from the storyline that they laughed at an admittedly corny reveal that was clearly a turning point that puts one of the main characters in danger.

For those who still remember the details of 2000’s Oscar-winning “Gladiator,” starring Russell Crowe, this film takes place a generation later, with only one returning main character aside from a couple of brief flashbacks and Derek Jacobi in a few scenes as a member of the political elite.

Connie Nelson is back as Lucilla, the royal daughter of the idealistic Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who was murdered by his son and her brother in the first film. She is now married to Rome’s top soldier, Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal).

We get a few minutes of blissful farm life in a remote village before the Roman navy arrives to take it over and the farmer and his beautiful and beloved wife have to suit up as soldiers. We know what happens to peaceful farmers and beautiful, beloved wives in these kinds of movies. Indeed, this is pretty much a replay of the first “Gladiator,” except this time the beautiful wife is also a fierce soldier. No big difference, though, because she gets killed off to fuel what we will later hear is the farmer’s biggest asset as an arena fighter, not strength or skill but rage.

That assessment of the farmer (Mescal) comes from Macrinus (Washington), who runs the gladiator program, wears only the finest glam. He is a trusted purveyor of news and rumors to everyone in Rome, especially Geta (Joseph Quinn of “Stranger Things”) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger of “Thelma”), the decadent young emperor-brothers who whine and lounge around in white face make-up except when they are enjoying the bloody battles in the colosseum. When the farmer-turned fighter says what he wants is a chance to cut off Acacius’ head, Macrinus tells him he will have it, and his freedom, too, if he succeeds in the arena.

Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal are two of the most charismatic, versatile, and talented actors in movies. Mescal can make a smile convey more than a page of dialogue or 15 minutes of backstory. Pascal has unmatchable comic timing. The one-dimensional characters they play do not give them a chance to show us their best. Instead, they have distractingly bulked up, like Popeye after the spinach. They look great in those Roman skirts, especially in the fight scenes, but even they cannot make the wooden dialogue and awkward plot twists work.

So much for the plot. Some people may want to make parallels between the fall of Rome and some of today’s headlines, but it won’t get you very far. I’m not going to give away the not-much-of-a-twist, which is in the trailer, so if you don’t want to know, don’t peek. In fact, you might do better to watch the without sound (you’d miss the score but you’d also miss the sounds of bones crunching and blood spurting). The dialogue is clunky and the storyline is hackneyed. The fans who come for the spectacle and pageantry will do fine, though, as director Ridley Scott and production designer Arthur Max make all of the long shots very impressive. Those who are there for the fight scenes will appreciate the variety — swords, of course, and attacks by crazed monkeys, sharks, and a rhino.

For me, though, it started to feel more like a game than a story and much too long.

Parents should know that this film has extended, very graphic violence with many characters injured and killed and many, many disturbing bloody images and sounds including decapitation. Characters drink alcohol and use drugs. A character essentially commits suicide. There is a reference to venereal disease.

Family discussion: Was rage the gladiator’s most valuable quality? How were the gladiator and the general alike?

If you like this, try: “Gladiator” with Russell Crowe

Blitz

Posted on November 7, 2024 at 12:06 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for thematic elements including some racism, violence, some strong language, brief sexuality and smoking
Profanity:	Some strong and racist language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended wartime violence with bombing, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	November 8, 2024

“Blitz” is set in the chaotic wartime bombing of London, when the Nazis attacked the city from the sky for more than 8 months, and many families sent their children to stay with strangers in the countryside to keep them safe. Writer/director Steve McQueen immerses us in the terrifying assault, the bombs seeming pointed directly at us, no way of knowing where they will land or what kind of destruction they will cause.

Fire and rubble are everywhere, and the water pressure in the firehose is so powerful that it jumps out of the hands of the people trying to help. The overwhelming attacks are met with determination and resilience. But within it is the recognition that they are terrified. When the security guards try to keep people fleeing the bombs out of the underground Tube stations, people push through. A live radio broadcast intended to boost morale features musical performances by weapons manufacturing workers, the British version of Rosie the Riveter. It is interrupted with protests about inadequate safety. Recognizing that nowhere is safe, London parents prepare to send their children away. One of those children is George (Elliot Heffernan), the nine-year-old bi-racial son of Rita (Saoirse Ronan), who works in the munitions factory.

They live with Rita’s father, Gerald (Paul Weller) and they are a close and devoted family. Gerald is a piano player in a bar in the evening. Rita has a lovely singing voice and is featured in that radio broadcast. Music plays a key role throughout the film, from two different nightclub scenes featuring Black performers to people camping out in bomb shelters singing songs to keep their spirits up.

Rita brings George to the train, loaded with children, each tagged like a piece of luggage. There is very little supervision and no kindness or sympathy. George, frightened and angry, barks “I hate you!” at Rita, who is already devastated at sending him away. As the train chugs into the countryside, some boys on the train try to bully George. He feels so much regret about the way he left his mother that he decides to go back home. He jumps from the train with no idea of where he is or how far he is from London. His journey is a Dickensian odyssey. Heffernan is the heart of the film, and he gives a thoughtful, soulful performance.

Nine is an age right at the cusp between the magical thinking of a child and the beginning of a deepening understanding of the world of adults. McQueen, so good at conveying the chaos of the Blitz, is even better at conveying that liminal moment. Through the havoc, George seems to travel in a protective aura of innocence. He is smart and brave, but we see through his eyes and understand the dire risks George is facing far better than he does.

George meets a lot of people along the way, including three young brothers who refused to be placed in different homes, Ife, a kind-hearted African-born security officer (Benjamin Clémentine), and a cruel group of scavengers who steal from dead bodies and destroyed buildings. They capture George because he is small enough and expendable enough to send into places they cannot reach. The lost boy themes echo Great Expectations and David Copperfield, giving George’s story a connection to heroic myth. Along the way, we get flashbacks showing us the racism experienced by George and his now-absent father. The bombs keep falling.

There is a optimism in the film that seems inaccurate for the era, including a Capra-esque speech chastising those in a shelter who do not want to interact with people of color and a very idealized character in Ife. Even within the context of George’s naive perspective and the “carry on” imperatives of the era, it is out of place, the present speaking through the past. Maybe we still need it to hear it.

Parents should know that this movie is a wartime story with intensive bombing attacks, characters are injured and killed and there are graphic and disturbing images. It also includes cruel and criminal behavior and racism. A child is in danger through much of the story. People having sex are overheard by others, including a child.

Family discussion: How did Ife change George’s mind about himself? What did the scene in the subway with characters from earlier in the film mean? What does music mean to the characters?

If you like this, try: “Hope and Glory” and “Au Revoir, Les Enfants,” other WWII stories from a child’s perspective

Here

Posted on October 31, 2024 at 12:33 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	ated PG-13 for thematic material, some suggestive material, brief strong language and smoking
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and alcohol abuse
Violence/ Scariness:	Sad deaths and medical problems, references to wartime injuries and deaths
Diversity Issues:	Treatment of BIOPC characters superficial
Date Released to Theaters:	November 1, 2024

Near the end of the multi-generational saga “Here,” a character mentions that the time he spent caring for his difficult father in his last years helped them have a better, more understanding relationship. This is tell, not show, the opposite of what a movie is supposed to do. In this case, that really important part, the show part, is a lower priority than the movie’s conceptual and technology gimmicks.

“Here” is based on a graphic novel by Richard McGuire. Its conceit (in both senses of the word) is that the whole story takes place on one spot, going back millions of years, before there was any life on Earth, then with plants, then dinosaurs trampling across, then people, an indigenous couple, a Colonial era man (the royalist son of Ben Franklin) and the enslaved people who resignedly salute him as his carriage passes. A house in what will be the suburbs is built in 1911. Its first owners are a Victorian couple, then an inventor and his devoted wife, much later a Black family in contemporary times, and, in between the central focus, a WWII veteran and his wife, and their three children, one who grows up to be played by Tom Hanks, de-aged by CGI, then looking like he lives now, then aged to show how he may/will look in 20 years. The content of these stories is designed to trigger reactions more based on our own experiences of the big life moments — love, loss, job woes, marriage, family conflict, Thanksgiving, babies, aging parents, more Thanksgivings, a wedding, a funeral — than on any connection to these characters. Our hearts may be tugged at because we are humans who cannot help identifying with these touchstones, but it’s all as synthetic as astroturf.

This film reunites the “Forrest Gump” team, Hanks as Richard and Robin Wright as his wife, Margaret, along with composer Alan Silvestri, cinematographer Don Burgess, screenwriter Eric Roth, and director Robert Zemeckis, who co-wrote the screenplay. Zemeckis, as he does too often, seems far more interested here in the technology than the storyline. The camera placement is static, always the same location in the house’s living room, facing the bay window across from what was once the Colonial plantation. Unlike the images in a graphic novel, movies have to have movement; it;’s in the name. So what we have is a lot of boxes coming in and out of the screen with glimpses of what is happening or did happen that may be contrast or commentary on the cyclicality of events or may just be there to remind us what time we’re in: the Beatles on Ed Sullivan! Jane Fonda’s exercise tapes! And then there are the technology touchstones. Radio, then television. The first cordless phone.

It reminded me of the Carousel of Progress at Disney World, and to be honest, the animatronic characters in that revolving audience show created for the New York World’s Fair in 1964, have more personality than most of the one-attribute characters in “Here.” That is unfortunately even more true of the characters of color in the film. The Black family seems to be there only to show us The Talk with their teenage son about how to behave if he gets pulled over by the police for a traffic violation. Their Latina housekeeper exists only to show us the pandemic. The indigenous people are like the dinosaurs — they exist only to disappear.

Parents should know that this film includes many family ups and downs including conflicts, divorce, serious illness, and death. There is a teenage pregnancy. A WWII veteran with injuries and PTSD self-medicates with alcohol. A young husband and father dies. There are sexual references, scanty attire, references to racism, and some strong language.

Family discussion: What would you want to say to the families who live in this house? Why didn’t Richard want to move? How did the characters decide to compromise on their dreams?

If you like this, try: the book by Richard McGuire, the Thornton Wilder play “The Long Christmas Dinner,” and the 1961 short film “The House”

Widow Clicquot

Posted on July 18, 2024 at 5:48 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong bloody violence, language, sexual content, nudity, and some drug use
Profanity:	Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, drugs
Violence/ Scariness:	Very sad death, reference to war
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	July 19, 2024

I never knew that the legendary Veuve Cliquot champagne was named for the woman who created it in the late 18th century. Veuve means widow.

Haley Bennett, who also produced, plays Barbe-Nicole Ponsardin Clicquot, devastated by the death of the husband she adored when she was still in her 20s. In flashbacks (too many) throughout the film, we see that her relationship with Francois (Tom Sturridge) was deep, intimate, and meaningful. They were both committed to full partnership in the family wine business and he had complete faith in her judgment and taste. That is why, almost unheard of in that era, he made it clear in his will that he was leaving her the vineyards and the business. Throughout the film, she faces one crisis after another as her father-in-law, Philippe (Ben Miles), tries to seize control of the company, her less hierarchical and more inclusive relationship with her workers is challenged, and production and logistics problems make it impossible for her to sell her wine. She gets support (and more) from a man who was her husband’s close friend (perhaps more) and the sales and distribution partner of the business, (Sam Riley).

Trailer for Widow Clicquot

Cinematographer Caroline Champetier, production designer Stéphane Sartorius and the sound team have created an immersive world that makes us feel like we’re inside a Napoleonic era oil painting. The creaking floorboards, high ceilings, and flickering candlelight are in sharp contrast to the natural world of the vineyard, where Barbe-Nicole is happiest and most at home. Bennett has a quiet, almost serene, quality but seems to glow from within. Her scenes with Sturridge in the blissful early days and then as he became more unstable (there is an implication that he may have committed suicide) and when she makes the decision to send their daughter away to protect her from her father’s deterioration, are subtle but effective, as is Barbe-Nicole’s passion for the vineyard and for making the most delicious champagne ever created. As she talks about the flavors and the size of the bubbles, as she talks about evading Napoleon’s restrictions on international sales, she is quiet, but sure. A defining moment is when she explains that she wants to rotate the crops because the vines need to struggle. That moment and her literal final word tell us that one of the world’s most delicate and cherished drinks is the result of struggle, one that all who embraced considered worth it.

Parents should know that this film includes a mental breakdown and a possible (offscreen) suicide, grief, some sexual situations with nudity, and the misogyny of the era.

Family discussion: Why was Madame Clicquot so confident and determined? What was unusual about the way she treated her employees? Was she right to try to evade the trade restrictions?

If you like this, try: The book by Tilar J. Mazzeo, and Bennett’s film, “Cyrano.” And, if you’re old enough, try some champagne.

Cabrini

Posted on March 5, 2024 at 9:41 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for thematic material, some violence, language and smoking
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol and alcoholism, smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Peril and violence including a fire, reference to suicide, dire poverty, loss of parents, serious illness
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie

Frances Xavier Cabrini was an Italian nun who became the first US citizen to be canonized as a saint. Sent to the US by the Pope in 1889, she established an order called the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and, despite poor health, she fought poverty, misogyny, and bigotry against Italian immigrants to establish schools, hospitals, orphans’ homes, and support services in several cities and countries.

This lush, respectful film stars Cristiana Dell’Anna as Mother Cabrini, David Morse as the Archbishop who sees her as a distraction who wants to divert his sources of funding, John Lithgow as the major of New York City who tries to stop her, and Giancarlo Giannini as the Pope who responds to her request to send her to do relief work in Africa by telling her she must go “not to the East but to the West.” He knows there is tremendous prejudice against the Italian immigrants in the US and no established welfare system for the poor or for children without parents.

Director and co-writer Alejandro Monteverde (“The Sound of Freedom”) has described the film as “a painting” of Cabrini’s life, and the sumptuous production values are breathtaking. Director of Cinematography Gorka Gómez Andreu makes every shot glow with light and life and production designer Carlos Lagunas creates 19th century Italy and New York so vibrantly we are utterly immersed in Mother Cabrini’s world. No expense was spared, no corners were cut, and so all of the many different locations are filled with fascinating detail.

The storyline is simple. People try to stop Mother Cabrini from helping her community and she does not give up. There are terrible setbacks — corruption, fire, her own physical frailty. There is prejudice, even contempt, for Italian immigrants. But she never loses faith and she never lessens her determination and resilience. Dell’Anna’s eyes are wonderfully expressive, and she makes the small woman in the severe habit a vital, moving presence.

Parents should know that this film includes dire poverty, bigotry, orphaned children, a reference to suicide, serious illness, and a fire.

Family discussion: Nuns are normally required to show humility and obedience. Why was Mother Cabrini different? What made her effective?

If you like this, try: “Mother Teresa: No Greater Love” and “The Two Popes”