Editor’s Note: 828newsNOW is proud to introduce a new series to our site: 828reviewsNOW, a space for arts, culture and lifestyle reviews across Western North Carolina. These articles represent the opinions of their writers, who remain committed to fair, ethical and unbiased journalism. We have received no incentive or payment from the subjects of these reviews and observe them with an objective, analytical eye in mind.
“WICKED” (2024, 160 min., directed by Jon M. Chu)
Let’s get the worst part of this film out of the way first.
“Wicked,” a film adaptation of the hit 2003 stage musical, only covers act one of its source material. The film runs for two hours and 40 minutes. The entirety of the stage show is two hours and 30 minutes long. The first film, deceptively titled “Wicked Part One” only onscreen, ends on a colossal cliffhanger.
“Wicked Part Two” will be released only a year from now, slated for Nov. 21, 2025. It’s wickedly frustrating, particularly for audiences unfamiliar with the Broadway version of the story.
That being said, “Wicked” has a bid for the most delightful film of the year.
Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande bring a theater kid’s enthusiasm to their parts as precocious, green-skinned Elphaba and narcisstic pink-dressed Galinda.
The movie hinges on the chemistry between its two leads – indeed, the “Wicked” logo is equal parts pink and green – and Erivo and Grande let sparks fly. Their enemies-to-friends arc is believable and bombastic. Grande is magical in “Wicked,” lending her pop star power to every scene she appears in. The only moments the film slows down are whenever Grande does not appear onscreen.
There is much furor around the film’s special effects on the Internet, but in practice, Jon M. Chu’s vision of Oz looks bright and beautiful. It isn’t the Technicolor splendor of the film’s 1939 grandmother, but few films could be. The production design and costumes are especially wonderful. Costume designer Paul Tazewell’s work is spellbinding.
The thing to see in “Wicked,” however, are the songs that have made the show so “Popular” for over 20 years. “Dancing Through Life” is spectacularly choreographed – and a showcase for the charismatic Jonathan Bailey – while “What Is This Feeling?” gives the Grande/Erivo dynamic an electric charge.
It is not a spoiler or a surprise to report that “Defying Gravity,” the show’s signature anthem, closes the film. I was in tears at the first bar. “Wicked” is wonderful.
Rating: 4/5
“GLADIATOR II” (2024, 148 min., directed by Ridley Scott)
The sequel to “Gladiator” came out this weekend, 24 years after the original Russell Crowe star vehicle made sword and sandal movies cool again.
The first film was a massive hit at the turn of the millennium, grossing over $450 million at the box office and winning five Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor for Crowe. Its catchphrases have percolated into pop culture permanence, particularly Crowe’s angry admonishment of the Colosseum crowd:
“Are you not entertained?”
“Gladiator II” is an attempt by director Ridley Scott to recapture the success of his earlier film. Scott is the one shouting at the crowd this time, blasting his audience with digital effects and reheated imagery.
“Are you not entertained?”
The sequel is immensely iterative of the plot of its predecessor, yet lacking Crowe’s grandiosity and the first film’s ingenuity.
I was not entertained.
There are entertaining moments, sure. The gladiator fights are the only upped ante in “Gladiator II” and they are as fun as they are preposterous. It would be impossible not to enjoy Paul Mescal, this film’s Crowe, fighting hideous CGI monkeys and sharks in any context. Denzel Washington has been rightfully celebrated for his deliciously deviant and unpredictable performance. Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger are amusingly psychotic in the light-haired, pale-faced register of “Game of Thrones” villain Joffrey Baratheon.
However, for every Washington and Quinn, there is a Pedro Pascal, woefully inert as an insurrectionist Roman general. Mescal is also hit-or-miss as Lucius, whom the film tells us is a fierce barbarian and inspirational leader. Mescal is wholly neither. He delivers a few stunning blows, mostly one-on-one with Washington or during combat, but ultimately Mescal’s limp characterization is ill-matched for the film’s blunt script .
“Gladiator II” might best be described by the state of the Colosseum floor. There are bright red bloodstains of action in splotches. Occasionally the film is swept away by something unexpected, like the shark-infested naval battle. But most of the time, “Gladiator II” looks and feels like nothing but dull beige dirt.
Rating: 2/5