Director: Mel Gibson
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Michelle Dockery, Topher Grace
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 91 mins

Flight Risk is the new Mel Gibson film, and his first since 2016’s Best Picture-nominated Hacksaw Ridge. Gibson’s proven a skilled hand behind the camera, with Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto, all proving visceral experiences. It seems rather uncharacteristic for Gibson to pick a 90-minute action thriller chamber piece as his latest project. This film follows Madolyn Harris (Michelle Dockery), a U.S. Marshal who is transporting fugitive Winston (Topher Grace) from Alaska to testify against a crime family. The plane is piloted by Daryl Booth (Mark Wahlberg), who might not be as innocent as he seems with an ulterior motive.

Even if it’s his weakest effort to date in its slightness, Flight Risk delivers and is big, dumb fun. It’s always entertaining and there’s a palpable tension in how things are going to play out and Gibson gets more than enough mileage out of the largely single location. It’s satisfyingly bloody too, with some crunchy fight and smatterings of gory injuries. The film’s visually interesting too, bolstered by a fitting Antonio Pinto score.

Although there isn’t much meat to the bone, Dockery and Grace both turn in committed performances and share a decent chemistry. Wahlberg, on the other hand, is quite something – he really chews the scenery as the completely nuts pilot with an outrageous bald patch. The actor reportedly shaved his head every day during filming instead of wearing a bald cap, but the effort is so distracting that it looks more like a wig. He’s entrusted with some truly despicable dialogue and I hated the character but I suppose that means Wahlberg satisfies the brief. 

Flight Risk is undeniably trashy but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy it. Casting a wider context as a Mel Gibson film, it’s undoubtedly not up to the rest of his work and I’m not sure what he saw when decided to take on this project. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Flight Risk become a future so-bad-it’s-good classic for its outrageous Mark Wahlberg performance.

Director: Leigh Whannell
Starring: Christopher Abbott, Julia Garner, Sam Jaeger, Matilda Firth
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 103 mins

Wolf Man is the new film by Leigh Whannell, a modernised reboot of the 1941 original with a relatively modest $25 million budget. Of course, there’s been no shortage of other attempts at remaking the gothic horror Universal monster and although it was negatively received, I loved Joe Johnston’s 2010 Benicio Del Toro-starring effort. Whannell knows a thing or two about making intelligent horror films on a relative budget, being best known for his writing collaborations with director James Wan with films such as Saw and Insidious. He’s also proven an adept director, making Insidious: Chapter 3 (which I consider to be the best sequel in the series), Upgrade and The Invisible Man. 

Like The Invisible Man, Whannell updates the creature feature for modern times. Gone is the quintessential British setting, stately estates and a stage actor. Instead, we follow a young family man, Blake Lovell (Christopher Abbott) who lives with his workaholic wife, Charlotte (Julia Garner), and daughter Ginger (Matilda Firth). Blake had had a rough childhood in the remote Oregon mountains with his father and decides that that the best way to rekindle his relationship with his wife is to return to his childhood home on holiday. However, a creature drives them off the road as soon as they arrive and… you know the rest. 

Unfortunately, Wolf Man is a complete and utter misfire – a surprise for this otherwise reliable director. The idea of lycanthropy being a metaphor for toxic masculinity and family trauma is very heavy-handedly done and the script, which Whannell co-wrote with Corbett Tuck is a rewrite away from being reasonable. It’s poorly paced –the film would have benefitted from another 15 minutes to flesh out its characters and not just throw them into a new setting almost immediately. Characters make stupid decisions and I didn’t find either Blake or Charlotte to be likeable, despite both Abbott and Garner trying their best. The characters simply aren’t developed enough and the film lack the grand scale of its predecessors in that it largely confines itself to a single location. The lower budget isn’t a problem in itself but Whannell doesn’t do anything interesting with it. 

On the plus side, the film’s lusciously shot by Whannell-regular Stefan Duscio, who captures the isolated and solemn nature of the forest, lending the film a sporadically claustrophobic quality. There’s also a couple of ambitious attempts at body horror but the lack of budget is painfully apparent. I think Wolf Man would have fared better if it had divorced itself from the Universal original and been an original horror – the result feels much closer to It Comes At Night, even if it’s nowhere near as competent. It’s a shame Whannell wasn’t able to crack this one and Wolf Man proves that some stories are best left in the past. 

Director: James Mangold
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Edward Norton, Elle Fanning, Monica Barbaro, Boyd Holbrook, Scoot McNairy
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 140 mins

A Complete Unknown is the latest by James Mangold after the disappointing Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. The director returns to the music biopic, a genre he’s proven influential in with the Oscar-winning Walk the Line. Here, Mangold tells the story of Bob Dylan, adapting a 2015 book by Elijah Wald called Dylan Goes Electric! which covers his earliest folk music success to his controversial use of electric instruments at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival. Mangold co-writes the script with Jay Cocks, his first since Martin Scorsese’s Silence. 

I must confess my knowledge of Dylan’s discography is very elementary. But perhaps that’s a positive because I really enjoyed A Complete Unknown, even if it succumbs to convention, the very antithesis of Dylan’s persona. But straight from the opening scene, Mangold directs the film with a real warmth and energy and I loved the film’s tone. I especially liked its commentary on how genres evolve and how fellow artists support each other, even if that example isn’t followed by the public. It also has plenty to say on what it’s like to meet your idols. The film’s lusciously shot by Phedon Papamichael, and the production design of the 1960s is brilliantly captured. 

Timothée Chalamet is magnetic as Dylan, proving himself ever the versatile actor, with leading roles in Call Me By Your Name, Dune and Wonka. Chalamet completely sells himself as Dylan, balancing his sheer talent while being somewhat impenetrable and unlikeable at times. The actor’s fully deserving of Awards attention. I’d have like to have seen even more development about his earlier life to make him less of a mystery. 

Chalamet’s bolstered by some terrific supporting performances. The standout’s Monica Barbaro as Joan Baez, who brings a real warmth to the singer and like Chalamet, also does all her own singing. This is a star-making turn and I hope she gets Oscar recognition. Edward Norton’s great too as the caring and gentle Pete Seeger and Mangold-regular Boyd Holbrook’s unrecognisable as Johnny Cash. 

It may follow a conventional biopic structure, but I still found A Complete Unknown gripping from start to finish, with Mangold at the top of his game paired with many impressive performances. Sometimes, convention is what’s required, if the subject matter and talent behind the screen can make an engaging experience of it, and Mangold certainly does that.  

Director: RaMell Ross
Starring: Ethan Herisse, Brandon Wilson, Hamish Linklater, Fred Hechinger, Daveed Diggs, Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 140 mins

Nickel Boys is RaMell Ross’ narrative feature directorial debut, previously known for his 2018 Oscar-nominated documentary Hale County This Morning, This Evening.  An adaptation of the 2019 novel of the same name by Colson Whitehead, Nickel Boys tells the story story of Elwood Curtis (Ethan Herisse), a young African-American living in a segregated Tallahassee, Florida. He excels at school and is accepted into a tuition-free accelerated study program at a historically black school. Unfortunately, he accepts a lift from a man driving a stolen car while hitchhiking to campus and the police send him to Nickel Academy, a reform school notorious for its abusive treatment of students. There, he meets Turner (Brandon Wilson) and despite their initially opposite ideals, become friends. 

The film is shot in a first-person point-of-view so we see the plot unfold through the eyes of Elwood (the perspective is then shared with Turner in the film’s second half). That’s certainly an unconventional way to tell a story and stands Nickel Boys apart from more conventional historical drama biopics. 

Unfortunately, despite its novel filmmaking technique, I found Nickel Boys to be very dull and I think that first-person point-of-view decision is to blame. It detracts from the important story being told, which tackles some incredibly heavy themes, but the film never conveys its emotions. The stilted script doesn’t flow in a natural way and  and I found it very difficult to connect with any of the characters. None of the performances worked for me, even Hamish Linklater who made such a powerful impression in Midnight Mass. The film is also drastically overlong at 140 minutes and a generic title card revealing some images of the true events feels emotionally manipulative – especially for a film that’s trying to defy convention. The only real plus side is Jomo Fray’s sporadically stirring cinematography, especially a scene of Elwood and Turner conversing underneath a window that’s featured in the theatrical release poster.

I really wanted to like Nickel Boys, especially considering the rapturous response it has received. But I found it to be an patience-testing exercise in style over substance and the novel filming style robbed the film of any emotional impact.

Director: Robert Eggers
Starring: Bill Skarsgård, Nicholas Hoult, Lily-Rose Depp, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Emma Corrin, Willem Dafoe
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 132 mins

Nosferatu is the new Robert Eggers film, one of the most exciting auteurs working today whose made a name for himself with thoroughly well-researched, period-correct films, with authentic scripts and stunning visuals. I loved The Witch, his fearsomely original and unsettling folk horror debut. I admired but didn’t love his next films – The Lighthouse and The Northman. A remake of F. W. Murnau’s 1922 German Expressionist silent film, Eggers has long-publicised his adoration for the blood-thirsty vampire tale and was originally going to make it after The Witch before deciding to delay its production to get it right.

If you’re familiar with the original, or Bram Stoker’s Dracula, then there’s no surprises story-wise. Nicholas Hoult and Lily-Rose Depp play the married Hutter couple, Thomas and Ellen, who live in Wisborg, Germany. Thomas is an aspiring estate agent, who is sent by Herr Knock (Simon McBurney) to travel to Transylvania’s Carpathian Mountains to sell a decrepit stately home to the reclusive Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård). But Orlok has a more sinister motive.

It pains me to say that Nosferatu is unfortunately a crushing disappointment and a case of style over substance. The style is undoubtedly the biggest positive, with the film beautifully shot Eggers’ favoured cinematographer Jarin Blaschke. Many of the visually arresting images are akin to paintings, with my two standouts a shot of a horse and rider traipsing their way through a forest in the twinkling night and a crepuscular figure’s decaying body over a sea of blood in a bed. The creature design of Count Orlok is also striking and a construction that only Eggers could dream of. After dazzling as Pennywise in It, the unrecognisable Bill Skarsgård stuns as the parasitic Orlok, with an unsettling voice he worked to lower by an octave for the role.  Robin Carolan’s swooning score is also brilliant, with recognisable and haunting themes developing as the film progresses.

Sadly, that’s where the positives end. Nosfetaru’s most significant problem is the utterly erratic pacing. Eggers races through the first hour and fails to establish the ensemble cast or convey how epic the journey is to Transylvania. This was something Werner Herzog excelled at in his Klaus Kinski-fronted 1979 remake, Nosferatu the Vampyre, with beautiful images of the dangerous, mountainous terrain the estate agent exhaustedly travels through to reach the isolated castle. The local Romani community who plead with Thomas not to continue with his quest are glossed over and there’s a real lack of tension between Thomas and Orlok, with Eggers impatient to bring the vampire back to Germany. The voyage back on the ghost ship is also rushed and once the film’s back on German soil, Orlok’s invasive hold over the town is protracted. What’s most peculiar is that Herzog’s 1979 remake also suffers from a languorous pace but Eggers’ film has the advantage of being half an hour longer but fails to develop a sense of dread or tension. 

There’s also some seriously wonky performances amongst the star-studded cast. Nicholas Hoult and Lily-Rose Depp have clearly put in a lot of effort, but they lack chemistry together and Hoult’s Thomas is particularly underdeveloped – I never felt pity for him once he’s under Orlok’s hold. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Emma Corrin are both terrible as the Harding’s, also lacking chemistry and being subject to some pretty perfunctory dialogue. Even Willem Dafoe fails to impress, content to simply repeat his Poor Things shtick as Albin Eberhart Von Franz (an Abraham Van Helsing equivalent), a controversial Swiss philosopher whom Eggers’ script resorts to him being an exposition device. Fortunately, Simon McBurney as the repulsive Herr Knock and Ralph Ineson as a well-meaning doctor fare well. 

You’d think for all Eggers’ passion that he’d try and do something innovative and justify his vision. But instead, this is a film that simply retreads its forebears (there’s even heavy lifting from various Dracula adaptations, too). By the time we reach the signature sequence with Orlok’s shadow reaching out for his victim reflected on a wall, all I could stifle was a groan. I was never gripped by the film, nor did I find it frightening and Eggers’ script, while period-correct, is strangely wordy and leaves nothing to the imagination. Murnau’s 1922 original didn’t just impress as a standalone film but functions as one of the horror genre’s most important staples, its influence felt throughout the medium’s history. While Eggers has made a film that repeats its visuals and narrative beats, that’s all he’s managed to achieve – aside from a handful of impressive elements, there’s strangely little to justify or show for the filmmaker’s passion.

Director: Nick Park & Merlin Crossingham
Starring: (voices of) Ben Whitehead, Peter Kay, Lauren Patel, Reece Shearsmith
Certificate: U
Run Time: 79 mins

Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl is the new Aardman film featuring the good-natured cheese-loving inventor and his intelligent anthropomorphic beagle, in what’s been a lengthy wait. The last time we saw the lovable clay-based duo was in A Matter of Loaf and Death (2008) and this is the first feature-length film since The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005), which I consider to be a masterpiece. With Peter Sallis (the voice of Wallace) sadly passing away in 2017, he’s now been replaced by Ben Whitehead. This new film also sees the return of the villainous Feathers McGraw from The Wrong Trousers (1995), a scheming penguin who enacts his revenge on the duo by reprogramming Wallace’s new invention – Norbot, a robotic garden gnome – to an ‘evil’ setting. 

And it’s another triumph – Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl is an excellent sequel with plenty of laughs and a typically sharp and witty script. The rapport between Wallace and Gromit is as strong as ever and the film has a lot to say on the reliance of AI and automation, the resurgence of old technology and police incompetence. There’s some fabulous action sequences (especially a climactic boat chase) and the film’s typically brimming with small details to pick up on future rewatches. Feathers McGraw steals the show yet again with some delicious gags and Ben Whitehead fits in seamlessly as Wallace – you’d be hard-pressed to tell it’s not Peter Sallis. 

That said, after two viewings, I don’t think it’s quite as strong as The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Vengeance Most Fowl is decidedly smaller-scale and there’s a surprising lack of cheese jokes (although the film makes up for it with plenty of other gags). This is yet another Wallace and Gromit adventure that’s impossible to resist and it does nothing to tarnish their revered reputation.

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Starring: Taron Egerton, Sofia Carson, Danielle Deadwyler, Theo Rossi, Logan Marshall-Green, Jason Bateman
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 119 mins

Carry-On is an action thriller directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, returning to the genre he’s most comfortable in. After directing a spate of Liam Neeson-fronted actioners on various modes of transport, Collet-Serra progressed to bigger budget fare and made Jungle Cruise and Black Adam. Set on Christmas Eve, Carry-On follows Ethan Kopek (Taron Egerton) who lives with his girlfriend Nora (Sofia Carson). They both work at Los Angeles International Airport, and Ethan feels pretty unfulfilled at his TSA job, after he failed to get into the police force after concealing his father’s criminal history. He manages to talk his supervisor into manning the baggage scanning machine. Well, he couldn’t have picked a more testing day to demonstrate his merits because he comes into contact with a group of terrorists who threaten him, as they try to get a bag filled with Novichok nerve agent through and onto a plane. 

Unfortunately, Carry-On is content to just go through the motions with its workmanlike direction and an ear-scraping script. It also requires one to seriously suspend disbelief with plot holes you could drive a truck through. The usually charismatic Egerton fails to make much of an impression and the rest of the cast also struggle to register. The biggest disappointment is undoubtedly Jason Bateman, who I had high expectations for, given he’s impressed in the past whenever he’s diverted from comedic fare with excellent performances in The Gift and Air. Unfortunately, his villain is overly talky and lacks nuance, resulting in a real lack of tension. 

The far-fetched action sequences are shot with an annoyingly glossy sheen, and Los Angeles airport is portrayed as being almost clinically clean. A thankless and implausible sub-plot featuring Danielle Deadwyler as a detective further presses on the brakes of this inert affair and Lorne Balfe’s score isn’t memorable in the slightest. 

Christmas Eve turmoil at an airport has been done to great success in the past, with films such as Die Hard 2. But Carry-On never manages to reach the heights of the films it’s inspired by and while it’s just about watchable if you suspend disbelief, that’s not good enough amongst the competition.  

Director: J. C. Chandor 
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ariana DeBose, Fred Hechinger, Alessandro Nivola, Christopher Abbott, Russell Crowe
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 127 mins

Kraven The Hunter is the latest in Sony’s Spider-Man Universe and the first live-action appearance of the supervillain. Unfortunately, none of the five previous instalments of Sony’s shared universe series have hit the mark so far – all three Venom films were awful, as was Morbius. And then, while Madame Web is undoubtedly the most enjoyable of the lot, it’s only because it’s so-bad-it’s-good.  Despite over two years of delays though, I’ve always held out hope for Kraven The Hunter. Why? Because it’s directed by J. C. Chandor, who is one of the most exciting original directors working today, responsible for Margin Call, All Is Lost and Triple Frontier, as well as A Most Violent Year, which I would consider one of my top five films of the 2010s. 

Of course, not all directors succeed when they transition to mainstream fare. On the one hand, Jordan Vogt-Roberts and Taika Waititi’s fingerprints are all over Kong: Skull Island and Thor: Ragnarok but there is precious little of James Mangold or Nia DaCosta in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny and The Marvels, for example. 

Aaron Taylor-Johnson plays the titular villain, and the film opts for an origins story opening where we see how a young Sergei is mortally wounded protecting his younger brother, Dmitri, from a lion. Sergei is found by a girl named Calypso, who having been forewarned she would intervene in an accident, heals him with a serum that gives him animalistic attributes. When Sergei becomes an adult sixteen years later, he tracks down criminals and crosses them off his list. 

While there are some interesting ideas here and there and it’s probably the best film in Sony’s shared universe, Kraven The Hunter is an unfortunate disappointment that is clearly the product of major studio interference. While many superhero films have taken the origins story route, the meat and bones of Kraven the Hunter’s structure is good but it’s plagued by an utterly atrocious script – the trio of Richard Wenk, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway are to blame. The visual effects are also embarrassingly bad, with obvious CGI animals and backdrops, as well as awful ADR. You wouldn’t think this should be a problem when you have a $130 million budget. The film’s blandly shot by Ben Davis and Benjamin Wallfisch’s score doesn’t make much of an impression. 

The performances are a mixed bag. There’s typically two types of Aaron Taylor-Johnson performances. When he’s in the right role, such as Kick-Ass or Nocturnal Animals, he’s excellent. But he’s often miscast and when that happens in films such as Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Tenet, he’s very wooden. This is the rare performance where he walks the middle line. He clearly puts his all into the character but is saddled by poor and cliched dialogue. Both A Most Violent Year veterans Alessandro Nivola and Christopher Abbott are clearly making an effort as the villains, The Rhino and The Foreigner. While I admired Nivola’s more realistic interpretation of the villain that’s a complete 180 from Paul Giamatti’s mechanised portrayal in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the performance is once again a victim of the script and some dreadful visual effects. 

Members of the dreadful performances club include Oscar-winners Ariana DeBose and Russell Crowe. DeBose is completely miscast as Calypso and has no chemistry whatsoever with Taylor-Johnson and Crowe is laughably awful as Sergei’s drug-trafficking crime boss father, replete with an unconvincing Russian accent. Fred Hechinger, who can currently be seen in Gladiator II, comes away with his reputation unscathed as Sergei’s brother, Dmitri, who isn’t very well developed. 

On the plus side, I liked the standalone approach the film takes, refusing to tie itself into other Marvel or Sony properties, save for a brief mention on The Daily Bugle newspaper. I also admire that Chandor went for a 15 / R-rating, which is what the violent villain deserves. While there’s blood-spray and gore to the kills, unfortunately they’re repetitive and the violence is never lingered on – I wish the film leaned in harder on its rating. There’s also a couple of effective quieter moments of character building sprinkled in and I liked Chandor’s attempt to ground the film in realism. 

It’s a real shame that Kraven The Hunter isn’t the blood-drenched slamdunk it should have been. I genuinely don’t understand why Sony fail to trust their filmmakers and water down the final product. But it’s not as awful as other entries in this series (albeit the bar is set low) and not that it will happen because of the negative reception but I’m confident Chandor could have made an interesting sequel if he was free of the studio shackles. Unfortunately, Kraven The Hunter is a poor film with clear signs of studio interference that could have been so much more, and an unfortunate stain on Chandor’s until-now electric career. 

Director: Edward Berger
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Sergio Castellitto, Isabella Rossellini
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 120 mins

Conclave is a mystery thriller by Edward Berger, who directed All Quiet On The Western Front, which won four Oscars but I found it to be rather overrated. Based on a 2016 novel by Robert Harris, the film opens with the Pope dying of a heart attack and Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is tasked with organising a papal conclave to elect a successor. However, Lawrence quickly finds himself investigating secrets and scandals about each of the candidates. They include Aldo Bellini (Stanley Tucci), an ambitious American liberal, Joseph Tremblay (John Lithgow), a Canadian moderate with a secret, Goffredo Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), an Italian reactionary right-winger and Joseph Adeyemi (Lycian Msamati), a Nigerian candidate with homophobic views.

Not dissimilar from many popular recent elections, Conclave is about deciding who is the least worst option and that’s what makes it rather entertaining. You’ll need to suspend disbelief (especially with its many twists) but if you’re after an overripe thriller filled with catty remarks, this delivers. Ralph Fiennes is reliably excellent as the overseer, who is also standing in the election and throughout the film, you’re constantly working out whether he has secret ambitions and if he’s as impartial as he should be. Sergio Castellitto, who was fantastic as the villainous King Miraz in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, turns his performance up to eleven as Tedesco and Isabella Rossellini also stands out as the head caterer and housekeeper who doesn’t have time for aimless chitchat. 

The jittery score by Volker Bertelmann (Hauschka) is fantastic and he crafts many memorable themes that add to the urgency of the election. Stéphane Fontaine lusciously shoots the film too, with excellent use of light and shadow to underscore the theme of corruption. 

But as entertaining as Conclave is, I’m not sure it’s quite the awards material it looks like it may become. None of the performances are career-best work from anyone (as committed as they are) and it isn’t particularly profound. Treat Conclave as the rousing thriller it is where old men in mitres run around making snide remarks and backstab each other, but nothing more. 

Director: Ridley Scott 
Starring: Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Joseph Quinn, Fred Hechinger, Lior Raz, Derek Jacobi, Connie Nielsen, Denzel Washington 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 148 mins

Gladiator II is the long-awaited sequel to the Best Picture winning 2000 original. Directed once again by Ridley Scott, this sequel picks up sixteen years after Marcus Aurelius’ (the late Richard Harris) death in the first film.  His grandson, Lucius (Paul Mescal) lives under the alias ‘Hanno’, with his wife Arishat (Yuval Gonen) in Numidia. Their peace is short-lived after the Romans invade, led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal). Hanno swears revenge against Acacius, becoming a gladiator for Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a former slave who has his own sights on the throne. 

Ridley Scott’s hit-and-miss when it comes to historical epics. On the one hand, he’s made hits such as Gladiator and The Last Duel but on the other hand are the disasters that are Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood and Napoleon. While Gladiator was an entertaining film, I wouldn’t have called it Oscar material and there are many other Ridley Scott films I’d have preferred he received awards recognition for. This sequel’s gone through a lengthy production period, with musician Nick Cave initially writing a script that saw Russell Crowe’s Maximus battle the gods in purgatory that was rejected. The story that Scott’s ultimately settled on is far more conventional – was the 24 year wait worth it? 

Gladiator II is an excellent sequel and although it shares some similar story beats to the original, it shakes things up more than enough to avoid it being a simple rehash. At its height, it almost has a soap opera quality (much in the same vein as House of Gucci and Napoleon) but in a good way. There’s an immense pleasure in anticipating how the different characters are going to eventually clash with their various motivations, and David Scarpa’s script sets them up well. Some of the characters are gleefully horrible and the cast are more than game for it. Scott’s also concocted some thrilling (if wildly historically inaccurate set-pieces with sharks and killer monkeys) that lean into the gore – this is very much a film about revenge and retribution. It’s also vividly shot by returning cinematographer John Mathieson, who lends the film a rich colour palette. 

Paul Mescal makes for a brilliant lead, almost channeling Oliver Reed in his Shakespearean delivery. Although he’s not going to receive the same level of acclaim as Russell Crowe, I predict Mescal will be fondly remembered for this role as time passes. Denzel Washington’s brilliant as Macrinus and steals his scenes as the influential and complexly written slave trader. Pedro Pascal is another highlight, who’s also written in a multi-layered fashion, who we initially regard from a villainous perspective but are then later asked to view him in a different light. Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger are also excellent as the mentally unstable Emperors and they make for refreshingly different villains from Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus in the original. And then when Matt Lucas turns up as a ceremonial host for the gladiatorial battles, you know this isn’t a film that’s taking itself very seriously. 

That Ridley Scott can still be directing a sword-and-sandals sequel like this with so much energy in his late eighties is nothing short of miraculous. Gladiator II is a film to watch on the biggest possible screen and it’s a compelling sequel that I think matches the original. There’s a real energy to it with a more complex set-up to it than the original and the thrill in watching how all the characters play each other result in a hugely enjoyable sequel.