I Just Watched (Films)

[Wrathbone]

Gladiator II

To my surprise, it wasn't anywhere as bad as I thought it might be. It's not great, either - certainly not a patch on the original, which is one of my favourite films of all time. It's a dumb spectacle, which taken on its own terms is perfectly reasonable entertainment. If the story had a reason to exist, or the performances could hold a candle to the likes of Joaquin Phoenix and Oliver Reed, it might even be good. Some of the performances are actually decent, notably Pedro Pascal and Denzel Washington, but they're not given much to work with. And then there are the shambolic panto performances of the co-emperors, who have none of the quiet menace of Commodus, instead favouring shouty "look how cuckoo crazy I am" antics.

I think it was a mistake to tie it so closely to the first film, because all that did was remind me how much better it was in all comparable regards. If they'd picked a different gladiatorial story in a different era of Rome, it might have worked better.

6/10

[Stormbringer]

A mate of mine said pretty much everything you did. I'm hoping to watch it soon, but I just can't get over the fact they've called it Gladiator 2.

2.

Are we really still calling sequels "2" now? It just seems so...something we did several decades ago. I know, there's probably tons of films out there with a 2 (I watched Inside Out 2 with my kids just a couple of weeks ago), but somehow it seems unbecoming of the absolute classic that is Gladiator. Perhaps if it was called 'Gladiator: Eagles of Rome' or 'Gladiator: Heirs of Maximus' or something like that, I'd get it, but...2. It's just not right.

Anyway, I should stop ranting about that and watch the actual film...

[Wrathbone]

If you're concerned with the title sullying the good reputation of Gladiator, it may be wise to make your peace with the sequel now.

[Wrathbone]

Eyes Wide Shut

26 years late to the party (not THAT party ) and good lord I wish I'd delved in sooner. Before Kubrick died, he declared Eyes Wide Shut his greatest contribution to the art of cinema, and I don't dare disagree. It's a masterpiece.

I knew very little going into the film. What I did know was some of the mythos that has built up around it, such as the persistent rumours that Kubrick was murdered because it attempted to reveal the sordid events and sex trafficking that the elite are involved with, or that certain scenes were edited after his death and before the film was released to hide a few details, or that he picked Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman because of Scientology and the fact that he begged his daughter to leave their cult, or that Kidman's father was supposedly involved in child abuse. Given what we now know about Jeffery Epstein, Prince Andrew and all that ilk, I'm inclined to believe that some or all of this could be true, or at least that Kubrick knew things about that arena that he tried to portray on film.

After watching it, all that remains fascinating but is secondary to the film itself. Even as a surface reaction from a first-time viewing, I was gripped from start to finish, mesmerised by the endless questions that are silently posed and the possible answers that are tantilisingly dangled but left to interpretation. More than any other Kubrick film I've seen, it rewards careful attention to detail - nothing is presented accidentally. And the final scene I had to rewatch about three or four times until it dawned on me why I found it so unsettling, and once it clicked... fuuuuuck!

Spoiler

I had to look up fan theories afterwards to confirm I wasn't simply imagining something beyond what's on screen, and it does seem that many people interpret it that they've handed their daughter over to the elite. It was the way they kept letting her run off in the shop that was bothering me, and then when we last see her she wanders off following two old guys, while Cruise and Kidman look away and immediately become unconcerned with her location from then on. There's also a guy that follows behind her that bears a striking resemblance to a waiter at the opening party at Victor's.

It's so subtle, but I refuse to believe Kubrick presented the scene like that without intent. It even makes the final conversation make more sense, which otherwise seems kind of baffling. Kidman's final word as to what they need to do - "Fuck" - to me implies that they accepted membership to the culty fuck-club and sold their daughter to them, partly because (I assume) Victor told them that they'd all be killed if they didn't, and partly because it's actually what they want. They both want extra-marital sex, to the extents that Alice admits she would have abanonded Bill AND HER DAUGHTER (!!!) for a night with the military guy, and Bill straight up pays for a hooker (even though he doesn't go through with it). This is the most difficult thing to accept which the film poses - that there are people, apparently decent upstanding citizens by appearances, who will literally sell their daughter for absolutely harrowing reasons.

I saw an analysis of the scene where Bill returns to the mansion and receives a note which suggests it may have been altered from Kubrick's original intention, and I find it quite compelling:

Spoiler

The note Bill receives essentially says stop investigating or else, which on the surface makes sense. But what if Kubrick intended us to see something far more sinister on the note, or for us to not see the note at all, leaving it to interpretation? That could seriously alter the tone and the context of the events that follow. What if the note said something like: You ignored your first warning, now there will be consequences. Hand over your daughter and we will give her a life of luxury. If you refuse, she will die, then you and your wife will die. Go to the police or the press if you want - we own them. Try running and you will find we are everywhere.

That to me explains Bill's actions better than the second warning letter. With the second warning, I'd expect Bill to realise that he's in too deep and should back down to keep his family safe, whereas instead he keeps probing against all reason. The only way that makes sense to me is if he thinks his daughter is in danger no matter what, so he's reeling against the inevitable to try and do anything he can to protect her. And then after he talks to Victor and returns home, he bursts into tears because he knows he can't win and he has to discuss what to do about it with Alice. It's not a conversation about their relationship, as it initially appeared to me, it's a conversation about whether they should sell their daughter or risk her being murdered.

Why would the note specifically be altered after Kubrick died? Because it's the one thing in the film that explicitly links the elite with child trafficking. It's tinfoil conspiracy territory, I know, but god it makes a disturbing kind of sense.

Despite it being over 2.5 hours long, I almost feel like I need to watch it again tonight. There is so much to unpack!

10/10