​"Moana 2" stars Auli'i Cravalho, Dwayne Johnson, Temuera Morrison, Nicole Scherzinger, Rose Matafeo, David Fane, Hualālai Chung, Rachel House, Awhimai Fraser, and Alan Tudyk.  Released on November 27, 2024, the film has Moana and Maui journeying to reconnect all of Oceania.

The film features the directorial debuts of David Derrick Jr., Jason Hand, and Dana Ledoux Miller, and it is a sequel to the 2016 film, "Moana".  For those who've been living under a rock, Disney celebrated its 100th anniversary last year, and let me tell you.  It was far from celebratory.  Besides the thoughtfully entertaining short "Once Upon a Studio", the once-profound studio was plagued by some questionable choices that caused everyone's heads to spin.  Its previous animated feature, "Wish", was supposed to be a unique piece of the puzzle to make its celebratory landmark memorable since it involves one of Disney's iconic story elements in its fairy tales: a wishing star.  Unfortunately, it wound up wishing that it didn't exist so it didn't have to be the victim of online bullying.  That film became the latest original property to suffer from box office losses due to the company's handling of its marketing, with its mixed-to-negative reviews being the nail in the coffin.  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  Although, I didn't think "Wish" was that bad.  It was just…inoffensively fine.  So, how will Disney recoup most of the money it lost throughout the past three years?  By making more sequels for the next couple of years, of course.  

The first sequel out of who knows how many takes us back to the world of Oceania for another seaworthy adventure with everyone's favorite Wayfinder, Moana, and her demigod ally, Maui.  The 2016 animated feature, inspired by Polynesian mythology, was an instant classic among critics and families that featured memorable characters and an entertaining plot that combines humor and heart.  It also kickstarted the career of the voice of Moana herself, Auli'i Cravalho, who recently starred in the musical version of "Mean Girls" and Disney's canceled animated series "Hailey's On It!".  Considering the endless amount of times kids have viewed "Moana" on Disney+, it was inevitable that the CEOs found themselves another franchise on their hands.  But why did it take so long to get a "Moana" sequel?  Long story short, it was originally developed as a series exclusively for Disney+.  However, it was reworked as a theatrical sequel that I'll be talking about this week, possibly due to losing their money on their less-than-stellar original content.  Does this last-minute decision help make the sequel as entertaining as its predecessor or make us want to drown it in the ocean?  Let's find out.

The story takes place three years after the first film.  Moana (Cravalho), the daughter of village chief Tui (Morrison), has brought back wayfinding for her people and is now becoming the next chief of Motunui.  During the ceremony, Moana receives an unexpected call from her ancestors, warning her of a curse placed by the storm god Nalo, preventing people from journeying through Oceania.  This forces Moana to form her wayfinding crew and travel to the hidden island of Motufetu to break the curse and reunite her people.  Her crew consists of craftswoman Loto (Matafeo), grumpy farmer Kele (Fane), and historian Moni (Chung).  Accompanied by the demigod Maui (Johnson), Moana and her crew face numerous challenges that'll test her new role as a chief and a Wayfinder, including Matangi (Fraser), an underworld goddess with a mysterious motive.

"Moana" is one of the two Disney animated features in 2016 that I loved when it first came out.  While I think "Zootopia" is the best of the two regarding its ambitious narrative and themes, "Moana" was a great movie in its own right.  The animation was sublime, its simple story was engaging and heartfelt, and the main characters were instantly lovable, benefitting from the vocal performances of Cravalho and Johnson.  Even though I haven't watched it as much as others, I still appreciate the film's refreshing ideas involving Disney's princess fairy-tale formula.  However, it also left me concerned about its direction with "Moana 2".  With the film being initially produced as a Disney+ series before switching to a theatrical route months before its release, I was internally worried that this surprising change would deteriorate the film's quality into a needless cash grab.  Don't get me wrong.  I didn't mind seeing more of Moana and Maui in some form or another, but like many sequels, it takes more than reuniting with our favorite characters to make a continuation worthwhile.

Fortunately, despite being animated by a Vancouver studio, "Moana 2" still boasts the vibrancy and detailed immersion that made its predecessor a gorgeous experience for all ages.  But what about its story?  Well, I hate to say that that was when my interest drifted off to sea.  Do you remember the mid to subpar theatrical sequels that Disney made in the 2000s to capitalize on the success of some of its classics like "Return to Neverland" and "The Jungle Book 2"?  "Moana 2" is the big-budget version of that format but with better animation.  On the one hand, the film had the makings of a fundamental and visually dazzling adventure for younger audiences.  On the other hand, it's an example of what would happen if a project went from a streaming series to a theatrical movie months before release.  You get an underwhelming and uninspired follow-up that resembles a television series.

But, to give the film credit, "Moana 2" did have some interesting ideas that could've worked in its favor.  One of those ideas is Moana's journey, continuing her quest to reunite the people of Oceania by breaking Nalo's curse.  But, of course, she'll also have to deal with her misfit crew, which would've tested her leadership skills.  There's also the mysterious goddess Matangi, who clearly has a thing for bats and the reason for our beliefs that Disney was returning to the straightforward villain route from its earlier films.  The film also emphasizes the world-building's gods more than its predecessor.  Unfortunately, its direction and screenplay didn't quite mesh well with those ideas, as it provided a few rehashed elements of the first film but with none of the charm or surprising thematic depth that made the predecessor a modern classic.  Sure, it didn't need narrative depth and maturity to be good, but it should have something to maintain my intrigue as an adult regarding its characters, world-building, and fun humor.  While it had some serviceable moments from these elements, they're sadly not enough to elevate its lackluster and lazily structured plot.

Jared Bush returned to write the screenplay for the sequel, but he and co-writer Dana Ledoux Miller (one of the film's directors) didn't find a way to overcome its messy waters.  While Moana and Maui serve as the movie's heart, the script focuses more on Moana's relationship with her crew members, Moni, Loto, and Kele.  This would've allowed the film to deliver more depth into Moana's villagers and its themes of leadership.  Instead, it's more intent on making them the comic reliefs to sell more toys for kids, similar to Pua and Heihei (Tudyk), and the result was pretty disappointing.  Regarding their one-dimensional personalities and forgettable chemistry, Moana's misfit crew made me more eager to reunite with Maui sooner rather than later.  The humor continued to provide a mixture of Polynesian culture and modernity and the chemistry between Moana and Maui, similar to its predecessor.  However, most of the jokes in the sequel were something we've seen before in the original, which failed to capture lightning twice with their lack of charisma and clever dialogue.  As for the villains, Matangi and Nalo, I don't see them joining Disney's Villainous Hall of Fame in the future due to their disappointing roles.

There's also the matter of its world-building or lack thereof.  With "Moana 2" continuing the pursuit of finding more wayfinders, it had the opportunity to expand its world through newer territories that would benefit from its technological achievements.  Sadly, it didn't offer much that stood out from its typical voyage through uncharted oceans.  There was Matangi's lair inside a massive clam-like monster that's effective in its color and lighting effects, but that's about it.  Additionally, it had a couple of moments that felt rushed or lacked a clearer sense of how specific elements work.  If the film added a few more tweaks to its world-building, especially regarding the gods' relationship with humanity, it would've made the sequel more refreshing and fun than its predecessor.  Much of this is due to the direction of David Derrick Jr., Jason Hand, and Dana Ledoux Miller.  These three first-timers were chosen to steer the ship instead of John Musker and Ron Clements, who directed the first film.  While they seem to have understood the first film's world and characters, they didn't have the wayfinding skills that Musker and Clements had to chart their course to newer territory.  One reason was its structure, which understandably felt like narrative-driven episodes stitched together to make a feature-length movie.  It not only made the pacing a bit more chaotic but also didn't give enough room for growth in its world-building, characters, and emotional themes.    

But, at the very least, the animation managed to compensate with its visual-heavy and detailed environments, especially the Polynesian culture.  The animation was produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios' Vancouver studio when it was first developed as a series, which made me think it wouldn't be as stellar as the first film.  Thankfully, I was proven wrong, as the presentation matched the predecessor's gorgeous sceneries and balanced fluidity with ease.  Another element I enjoyed was the cast.  Auliʻi Cravalho continued to deliver her acting and singing talents through her lovable performance as the title character, expressing the humanity and energetic charm responsible for making her another source of Disney Princess inspiration for younger fans.  While I'm still happy Cravalho's finding success with the "Moana" franchise, I am hoping she continues to find another source of success through works outside the Disney brand, especially regarding what happened with "Hailey's On It".  That show deserved better.  Dwayne Johnson also provided the watchable charisma we've expected from him regarding his role as the strong-willed yet narcissistically charming Maui.  Hualālai Chung, Rose Matafeo, and David Fane were tolerable as Moni, Loto, and Kele, respectively, but again, their personalities seemed more one-noted than three-dimensional.  I would also credit Awhimai Fraser as Matangi, one of the movie's new characters.  Matangi offered a kooky and seemingly mischievous personality that worked well with Fraser's vocal performance, but the character itself was lackluster enough to drive me batty.  Also, Moana's little sister, Simea (Khaleesi Lambert-Tsuda), was pretty adorable.    

But what about the songs, you ask?  Were they catchy enough to guide this ship away from its humdrum appeal?  Well, yes and no.  While Mark Mancina and Opetaia Foaʻi returned to compose the score for "Moana 2", Lin-Manuel Miranda did not come back to write more songs for the characters to sing.  Instead, Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear were brought on board to fill that role, and I thought they did okay with what they delivered.  Despite not matching the inspiring and thoughtful heights of the first film, the songs in "Moana 2" were serviceable in filling the story's gap, but not enough to remember them on the drive home.  "Beyond" by Cravalho was the most tolerable song in the library, while "Can I Get a Chee Hoo" by Dwayne Johnson didn't capture the similar charm and energy of "You're Welcome".  As someone who likes movie musicals, I didn't mind songs that make me tap my foot with delight, whether they're memorable or not, but regarding their impact, they're a far cry from what the predecessor brought. 

Overall, "Moana 2" charts itself through rougher waters with an uninspired and narratively tame continuation that drowns its predecessor's soulful appeal to the depths of the ocean.  Undoubtedly, the film boasts some of the most impressive animation Disney can offer regarding its world-building and Polynesian mythology, and Cravalho and Johnson still deliver the chemistry we expect from the duo due to their performances.  Sadly, those elements weren't enough to take this ship as far as it wanted to go regarding its mediocre narrative and messy structure.  This is a vastly inferior and money-grabbing voyage through uncharted waters plagued by its weak screenplay, generic direction, forgettable humor, subpar songs, and one-dimensional side characters.  

Of course, Disney making effortless cash-grab sequels to their classic films is nothing new for the studio, as it had done so back in the 2000s with their direct-to-video catalog and a couple of theatrical follow-ups from Disneytoon Studios.  Still, I couldn't help but feel downhearted that it didn't meet the expectations I was hoping for, considering how much I love its predecessor.  Hopefully, this will serve as a valuable lesson for the studio to learn.  If you want to make a continuation of one of your finest works as a theatrical film, you develop it as one rather than passing off a television series format as a theater-exclusive experience.  I'm sure fans of the first film would enjoy specific moments from "Moana 2", but besides that, this is an unfortunate misfire from Disney.

​"Gladiator II" stars Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger, Lior Raz, Derek Jacobi, Connie Nielsen, and Denzel Washington.  Released on November 22, 2024, the film has a former heir fighting as a gladiator to protect Rome and seek revenge.

The film is directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed films such as "Alien", "Thelma & Louise", "American Gangster", "The Martian", and "Napoleon".  It is a sequel to Scott's 2000 historical action epic "Gladiator".  History has its share of legacies that last for generations.  Some involve sparking life-changing legends through revenge, especially those in 2nd-century Rome.  One legacy was depicted in Ridley Scott's historical epic classic, "Gladiator", a traditional revenge tale involving a Roman general becoming a gladiator to avenge his father's death.  The film, which benefited from Russell Crowe's award-winning performance and Scott's approach to technical achievements, became a pinnacle of the filmmaker's role in the film industry.  It was seen as a one-and-done film that completes Maximus's journey of revenge until Ridley Scott decided to continue that legacy 24 years later but through the eyes of Lucilla's son, Lucius.  He expanded his "Alien" franchise a decade ago, so surely he'll be able to do the same with "Gladiator", right?  Let's travel back to Roman times and find out.

The story occurs after the events of "Gladiator".  It centers on Lucius Verus (Mescal), a Roman refugee.  Following the death of Maximus, Lucius now resides in Numidia under the alias "Hanno", where he spends his peaceful days with his wife, Arishat (Yuval Gonen).  Unfortunately, his tranquil life was immediately interrupted by the invasion from the Roman army, led by General Marcus Acacius (Pascal), who slaughtered his wife and forced Lucius into slavery.  After learning about his family history, including Maximus's tale and his mother Lucilla (Nielsen), Lucius seeks to become a gladiator and exact revenge against Acacius.  He is trained under Macrinus (Washington), a former slave with an agenda to overthrow the Roman twin emperors Geta (Quinn) and Caracalla (Hechinger).  As Lucius fights through multiple rounds in the arena, he finds himself on a path that could lead him to continue Maximus's legacy.

On multiple occasions, a sequel to a cinematic classic I haven't seen before persuaded me to do so in preparation for its release.  "Gladiator II" is one of those occasions, as I hadn't watched the first "Gladiator" movie all the way through.  That is until "Gladiator II" convinced me otherwise.  I was able to find the right time to watch "Gladiator" on Paramount+ before seeing the sequel, and I was very impressed at how well it holds up presentation-wise.  While I didn't see it as a perfect masterpiece in terms of its formulaic and bloated story, Ridley Scott's direction and style were enough to entertain me and its audience, even after 24 years of release.  However, it also left me concerned about how "Gladiator II" would stack up with the original in terms of quality and necessity, similar to my many experiences with the previous legacy sequels.

As mentioned earlier, "Gladiator" was seen as a one-and-done cinematic epic that didn't even need a franchise to begin with.  It told a revenge tale of Maximus avenging his family through gladiator battles, sparking inspiration to his audience, and that's it.  But, it seemed that Scott had an intriguing idea of expanding this Roman world.  But, instead of reviving Maximus from the dead to do so, he went with the perspective of a much older Lucius, portrayed by Spencer Treat Clark in the first film.  Considering his small screen time in the predecessor, this seemed like an excellent opportunity to expand Lucius's role as the next hero who stands up against the forces of tyranny and injustice instead of being a side character.  But does its story and entertainment help in realizing this opportunity?  Well, not really.

I'm pretty sure I will get executed for saying this, but "Gladiator II" was not something to be entertained about.  I know.  I was pretty shocked by my own reaction as well since I heard nothing but good responses about this sequel.  But after watching the movie myself, I just couldn't see it.  The first "Gladiator" movie was a glum yet invigorating revenge tale about a general avenging his family and standing up to a false god.  Sure, it wasn't groundbreaking regarding the story, but it was held together by the technical aspects and convincing emotion.  So, what did Ridley Scott do with "Gladiator II"?  Have Lucius go through the same process, of course.  "Gladiator II" closely resembled its predecessor, mirroring the same themes that characterized Maximus's journey.  You have Lucius battling through the ranks as a gladiator to avenge his wife while being tutored by the former slave who bought him, Macrinus.  But, of course, it's not a legacy sequel without him continuing the path that Maximus started before his death, along with some flashbacks that would probably make specific people wish they'd watch the first movie instead.  While it's not without its moments of style and action, it didn't have the necessary momentum to make its unoriginality tolerable.  The emotional core that defined the first film's legend was overshadowed by the sequel's blockbuster spectacle and the unexpected inconsistency of its direction.

Ridley Scott has been known for delivering grim and intriguing storylines that balance with the cinematic scales of the production designs and raw violence, especially "Gladiator" and even "The Last Duel".  However, when it comes to specific movies that attempt to balance the darkness with campiness, Scott didn't quite have enough skills to survive this type of fight.  Movies like "House of Gucci" and "Napoleon" showcase impressive authenticity in their violence and production designs.  But, whenever they attempt to inject humor through campy performances or tones, they wound up being too absurd for their own good, overshadowing the grimness they're going for.  "Gladiator II" belongs in this category, as it went from a bleak historical action epic of its predecessor to a brighter yet violent action blockbuster whose laughable melodrama lacks the morality of its storytelling and themes involving revenge, honor, and freedom.  I'm pretty sure those who weren't fans of the first film's dark tone may be satisfied with the sequel's lighter approach, but those who do may not want to step into the arena again for a while.  The movie is also a few minutes shorter than its predecessor, but that didn't excuse the pacing for being a tad rushed during certain moments.

While Scott's direction failed to provide a more potent substance for "Gladiator II", he was able to compensate with the one element he improved upon: the action scenes.  "Gladiator" has plenty of violence that captures the rawness and realism of its brutalities, with the opening sequence being its highlight.  But sometimes, the shaky cam during those sequences can be a tad annoying to witness.  Ridley Scott corrected that mistake for "Gladiator II" by providing still shots for audiences to see the violence up and front.  While not as memorable as the violence in its predecessor, the bloodshed action in "Gladiator II" still provided the entertaining spectacle audiences can expect from a history-based movie.  The production designs were also well-crafted for the film's historical authenticity and set pieces, accompanied suitably by its visual effects.

As for the cast, they were enjoyable for the task they were given, but I'm not convinced they were considered awards-worthy.  After starring in the brilliant "Aftersun" two years ago, Paul Mescal takes center stage in a big-budget blockbuster as the adult Lucius, a character Spencer Treat Clark played in the first film.  Mescal made the most of his acting abilities to portray Lucius' revenge-filled persona, even if it didn't have the same emotional grasp as Russell Crowe's Maximus.  Pedro Pascal and Connie Nielsen did pretty well as Acacius and Lucilla, respectively, with the latter being one of the two who reprised their roles from the original film.  The other is Sir Derek Jacobi, who returned to play Senator Gracchus.  Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger are the only two actors who left me feeling divisive, especially regarding the film's conflicting tone.  Their characters, Geta and Caracalla, were described as unhinged and power-hungry emperors bringing Rome further into anarchy, but in terms of their over-the-top performances, they sound like they belong in a Looney Tunes cartoon.  There was some humor to be had in their far-fetched acting, but I didn't chuckle at it because it was funny.  I chuckled because of how idiotic and even forgettable it resembled.  At the very least, Denzel Washington, the guy who always makes every film he's in watchable, committed to the film's unwanted campiness better than the antagonists regarding his performance as Macrinus.

Overall, "Gladiator II" is an unnecessary, shameless, and inconsistent expansion of the "Gladiator" universe, lacking the honor and emotion that drove its predecessor to victory.  It still carries the blood-spewing spectacle the first movie is known for, especially regarding the well-framed action sequences.  Unfortunately, the grandness of its storytelling scale was buried underneath the sands of tedious campiness and uninspired approach to its thematic material.  The cast, especially Denzel Washington, was admittedly enjoyable, and the set pieces were genuinely immersive for the action sequences.  But the uneven direction of its tone, emotional depth, and familiar narrative beats make this continuation of Maximus's legacy unworthy of my mercy.  If campy historical action is your thing, you might have a better time with "Gladiator II" than I did.  However, if you're hoping for a tone and storytelling similar to its predecessor, you're better off watching Maximus fight in the Coliseum again.     

​“Gladiator” stars Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou, and Richard Harris.  Released on May 5, 2000, the film has a Roman general becoming a gladiator to avenge his family and the emperor.

The film was directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed films such as “Alien”, “Legend”, “Black Hawk Down”, and “American Gangster”.  Nowadays, audiences are only entertained by their electronics, ranging from television to video games.  However, back in the good old days of Rome, the population had their form of entertainment that no other piece of electronic can capture, mainly because they weren’t invented yet.  That’s right, folks!  I’m talking about watching several people with armor plates and skirts kill the stuffing out of each other.  With the raw intensity and unrestrained violence, gladiator matches were the grand events that captured the crowd-cheering spectacles of the matchups way before modern sports like football took over.  Many years later, these historical battles had been recaptured by different types of media, like video games, television shows, and movies.  

One of them was Ridley Scott’s Oscar-winning historical epic, “Gladiator”, a timeless tale of revenge and honor that elevated the careers of such actors as Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix.  While Scott has its share of misses in his filmography, it’s hard to ignore the filmmaker making a name for himself with his iconic classics that shaped the film industry for the better, especially the ones in the 2000s.  “Gladiator” was one of those classics, even though its storytelling and historical accuracy left critics divided when it was first released.  With its long-awaited sequel on the way, I decided to take the opportunity to watch this film for the first time and see what made it an entertaining epic.  With that said, let’s head into the arena and see if this cinematic classic is worthy of ruling over the film industry.  

The story occurs in 180 AD.  The Roman general Maximus Decimus Meridius (Crowe) has recently led his army to victory against the Germanic tribes.  He is then approached by the country’s emperor, Marcus Aurelius (Harris), who informs Maximus that he wants him to become the next emperor to restore the Roman Republic.  This didn’t bode well for Marcus’s son, Commodus (Phoenix), who proceeded to murder his father and claim the throne for himself.  Commodus then executes Maximus’s wife and son when Maximus refuses his rule.  Now reduced to slavery, Maximus is forced to fight in local tournaments under the guidance of his gladiator trainer, Antonius Proximo (Reed).  As he gains popularity and rises through the ranks, Maximus seeks to avenge the murder of his family and the emperor and overthrow his false king.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first.  I had not seen “Gladiator” all the way through until today.  I’ve only seen a couple of clips from the film, including Crowe’s classic quote, “Are you not entertained?!” but that’s about it.  It was released during my childhood when I was only restricted to watching movies that were rated G or PG, so my interest in Ridley Scott didn’t surface until I watched “Prometheus” in 2012.  However, even though I was old enough to watch the director’s adult-rated material, I had not taken the opportunity to visit most of his older masterpieces, including “Gladiator”, save for “Alien” and “Blade Runner”.  Fortunately, with “Gladiator II” on the horizon, I decided to take advantage of this by watching “Gladiator” in its entirety, which is available on Paramount+ as of this writing.  Considering that Paramount and DreamWorks distributed the movies, this seemed like a no-brainer.

So, after my experience watching “Gladiator”, do I believe it still holds up to this day?  Yeah, it does.  Would I consider it a masterpiece like everyone else did?  Well, in a way, it’s undoubtedly one in its own right, but I wouldn’t say it’s one of my favorite movies from Ridley Scott.  While far from unique in its storytelling, “Gladiator” serves as another example of emotion and scale joining hand-in-hand to create a cinematic epic rich in visual grandeur and sublime entertainment.  Regarding its story, “Gladiator” is an old-fashioned tale of revenge, with Maximus avenging the deaths of those closest to him.  However, it also represents honor and freedom, both defining a true ruler.  Maximus was seen as a potential leader full of mercy and integrity capable of restoring political balance, which is why Marcus Aurelius chose him to succeed him.  Of course, he finds those traits tested when he’s forced to kill for survival in the arena.  As for Commodus, he’s seen as the opposite of Maximus, as his jealousy and obsession with power made him an unworthy emperor seeking to win people’s approval through manipulation and fear.  This hero/villain duo embodied both the good and bad of an inspired beacon of hope as they confronted each other not just with their swords but also their psyche.

Regarding the screenplay by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson, it offered pretty much everything you’d expect from a revenge action film set in 180 AD Rome, including its formulaic structure and blockbuster violence.  This was complicated by the script rewrites they had to endure, with one of the reasons being the unfortunate death of Oliver Reed before production was finished.  But, at the very least, their struggles led to them earning an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay.  There’s also a matter of its runtime, clocking in at over two and a half hours long.  For a movie involving a general seeking revenge and “winning the crowd”, it was a bit draggy for me to endure, especially since it’s more dialogue-driven than action-packed.  However, I didn’t find myself bored with it, as its presentation and driving emotion elevated the spectacle of gladiators fighting and killing, even if some of the dialogue can be mid-tier.  Except for Crowe’s iconic quote, that one was pretty memorable.

One of the things I appreciate about Ridley Scott is his ability to convey a sense of grandeur and immersion, even within a somber atmosphere.  With the combination of practical effects, CGI, and real-life locations, Scott envisioned the rawness and authenticity of Rome as if we were seeing a portrait of history come to life.  Of course, it does fall into the category of historical movies with inaccuracies, a flaw that has plagued Scott’s other historical epic, “Napoleon”.  Thankfully, the inaccuracies in “Gladiator” were overshadowed by Scott’s visually dynamic appeal, balancing the grandness of the production design and cinematography with its grim tone and saturated color palette.  Even the action scenes directed by Scott were riveting, with the opening battle sequence being the highlight for its robust violence and tension, despite the shaky cam being slightly annoying.  Those elements were accompanied by the wonderfully striking music by Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard, whose orchestrated tunes elevate the dramatic scale without overpowering it.  This is another movie that showcased Ridley Scott as a cinematic master whose visual scale speaks as loud as his narratives, even though some of his films are less effective than others.

Finally, we have its cast, whose performances were just as lavish and satisfying as a gladiator achieving victory over their opponents.  Russell Crowe delivered a grand performance that effectively combines Maximus’s honorability and goodwill with subtle rage, with the latter coming from Maximus battling internally not to lose his merciful self to vengeance.  Crowe has proven to be a charismatic actor showcasing physical prowess and appeal in most of his movies, but he’s also at his best when providing dimension and heart into characters like Maximus.  It’s no wonder he won an Oscar for his role.  Joaquin Phoenix was also excellent as the power-hungry Commodus, as his acting range reflected the villain’s internal conflict with maintaining his rule without sparking a riot himself.  I would also credit Richard Harris, aka Albus Dumbledore, for his brilliant portrayal of Marcus Aurelius, the former emperor of Rome.  While he’s only in the first act of the film, Harris’s scene with Crowe’s Maximus proved that a performance can shine even in the smallest of roles.  I also discovered that a young Djimon Hounsou was involved in the movie before he garnered my full attention in 2014.  He played Juba, another gladiator sold into slavery and Maximus’s closest ally.  Long story short, he was sublime with what he was given.

Overall, “Gladiator” delivers entertainment and spectacles that are as raw and visually engaging as an actual gladiator match.  When it comes to storytelling, its originality was buried beneath the sands by its formulaic and bloated narrative and grim tone.  However, the film is another example of utilizing its style, visual grandeur, and emotional core to elevate most of the narrative shortcomings.  As mentioned earlier, Ridley Scott is seen as a visual storyteller attempting to balance the seemingly straightforward plots with the splendor of the cinematic scales, gloomy atmospheres, action set pieces, and character-driven drama.  While most of his films aren’t as great as others, Scott has repeatedly proven that his presentation shines the most in balancing blockbuster aesthetics with an authentic and down-to-earth atmosphere, with “Gladiator” being one of those examples.  With its stellar cast, compelling direction, suitable screenplay, and outstanding technical aspects, the movie has enough bloodshed and appeal to entertain plenty of fans of Scott’s works.

​"A Real Pain" stars Jesse Eisenberg, Kieran Culkin, Will Sharpe, Jennifer Grey, Kurt Egyiawan, Liza Sadovy, and Daniel Oreskes.  Released on November 1, 2024, the film has two mismatched cousins embarking on a tour through Poland.

The film was written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg, who's known for writing and directing "When You Finish Saving the World".  With the last couple of months of 2024 upon us, there's no doubt that we're anticipating some intriguing "blockbusters" to cap off the year.  But, while most people are eager to watch magical witches, Christmas-saving heroes, and gladiators on the big screen, some are anticipating the recent potential contenders seeking to compete in this year's award season.  I'm on both sides of the cinematic coin, but when push comes to shove, I usually find the time to check out original movies that have interesting concepts, get awards buzz, or both.  This is one of those days.  This latest comedy drama comes to us from another actor turned filmmaker, Jesse Eisenberg, who made a solid first impression with "When You Finish Saving the World" two years ago.  Based on the early reception this film is getting, it sounds like Eisenberg made much of an improvement to prove himself worthy as a confident storyteller, especially when it involves dysfunctional families.  Does it deliver a heartwarming family trip worth remembering?  Let's find out.

The story follows David (Eisenberg) and Benji Kaplan (Culkin).  They're mismatched cousins who reunite for a Holocaust tour through Poland to honor their late grandmother.  As they explore the sights of Poland and learn about Jewish history, David and Benji confront numerous difficulties that could tear them apart.  One of them is the old tensions that separated them in the first place against the backdrop of their family history.

This was another film that got me eager to watch it the more times I watched the trailer.  I'm always in the mood for vacation comedy movies that offer shenanigans and charm, especially those involving exploring international countries.  But, more importantly, I was curious about Eisenberg's intentions as a filmmaker since I've been following the actor since the early 2010s.  Sure, I've only known him from "The Social Network", "Rio", "Zombieland", "Now You See Me", and even his controversial take on Lex Luthor, but outside those movies, he's proven to be quite consistent with his filmography.  I didn't find the time to watch "When You Finish Saving the World" when it first came out, mainly because its plot didn't capture my interest enough.  So, "A Real Pain" will be my first actual exposure to Eisenberg's filmmaking vision.

From the concept alone, "A Real Pain" may resemble another basic international trip scenario involving an estranged duo or group encountering a series of comical shenanigans overseas.  Of course, this leads to them attempting to survive each other amid the drama they come across.  However, it's actually a lot more complex and profound than we usually realize, transforming the film into something beautifully humane and poetic.  This film definitely had the humor and heart we've come to expect from the marketing, mainly from the estranged cousin duo.  But when you add in the layers of its enduring themes, it becomes a particular cinematic treat that left me feeling proud of being a human being.  In short, you can say that "A Real Pain" is not a pain to sit through.

One main reason was Jesse Eisenberg's vision in his direction and screenplay.  Eisenberg has reached the sophomore phase of his directorial career, where he has begun to grow as a visionary filmmaker.  That meant studying the pros and cons of their debut and using them to improve their craft and even explore the world through their eyes.  While I didn't watch "When You Finish Saving the World" beforehand, watching "A Real Pain" was enough to realize his remarkable talent as a filmmaker.  One of the things I loved about Eisenberg's direction was how he made every scene look straightforward but rich with beauty and complexity.  It may seem like we're watching the cousins fool around during the tour, but in reality, we're watching them reconnect after being estranged from a tragic loss while exploring their Jewish heritage.  He understood that the proper way to express its balance of comedy and drama is by examining the humane and often tragic side of this seemingly "harmless" endeavor without being manipulative in its sentimentality.  This combined extremely well with its impeccable cinematography and tight pacing that never skipped a beat with its narrative, further emphasizing Eisenberg as someone beyond their acting capabilities.

Regarding the screenplay, Eisenberg has also proven himself a remarkable storyteller who relies on his own history to reflect the tale he wants to tell instead of the usual conventional narrative tropes.  "A Real Pain" didn't just examine the cousins' estranged reunion but also explored the aspects of the Jewish community through the Holocaust tour, the key element of the characters's development.  From what I researched after watching the movie, Eisenberg was raised in a secular Jewish household, with his ancestry tracing back to Poland and Ukraine.  So, it made more sense why he wanted to explore this topic in a film like this.  It brought plenty of authenticity and tenderness to this community by examining the poignant human connection from its history, especially the Holocaust.  With a screenplay that thoughtfully portrays its commentary through dialogue and compassion, "A Real Pain" shows that it's not about the duo surviving each other.  It's about them confronting the fear of expressing the pain and sadness in their lives.

In addition to his directing and writing, Jesse Eisenberg continued to do incredibly well with his acting.  His performance as the repressed and pragmatic David was one of the best I've seen from the actor known for his socially awkward-type roles.  It also showed he can take his usual mannerisms in his roles and add a more genuine side to make his performance similar but unique.  However, the real star of the movie was Kieran Culkin.  I've only known Kieran from the "Home Alone" films and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", so you can say that I haven't been following him as much as his brother, Macaulay Culkin.  But after watching him in "A Real Pain", that could change sooner rather than later.  He was incredible in his role as Benji, a free-spirited and erratic drifter who hides his vulnerability with his boundary-pushing behavior.  Kieran Culkin has the energetic vibe that drives the movie's comedy, but he's also aware of the restraint given to make his character less irritating than he appeared to be.  This allowed Benji to shine as a flawed human being instead of a traditionally wacky source of comic relief.  The distinct personalities of David and Benji also helped provide an irresistible chemistry that's lively to a fault but also left me feeling rewarded with their uplifting spark.  The supporting cast also did very well with their performances, including Will Sharpe as James, the tour guide, and Jennifer Grey as Marcia.

Overall, "A Real Pain" is a beautiful and incredibly moving reflection of human connection that's painless in its craft and talent.  At first glance, it may seem like a straightforward dramedy filled with comical shenanigans and adult-rated material, but its layered themes show that that wasn't the case.  This is the type of movie that's short enough to make me feel less drained but still packs enough punches in its emotional depth, craft, and thoughtful commentary to satisfy my cinematic needs.  Eisenberg and Culkin were both fantastic in their roles, especially the latter, who may have a shot of earning some awards recognition.  But, I will also credit Eisenberg for his ability to provide comedy and drama with a humane and personal touch regarding the cinematography, direction, chemistry, and tightly-written screenplay.  This is undoubtedly one of the best movies I've seen this year, and if you haven't done so already, please find the time to check it out if it's playing at a theater near you.  It is such an outstanding film that I hope it gets more traction during this year's awards season.