Tag Archives: paul-mescal

Hamnet

Posted on by

I actually did not know that this was a story featuring William Shakespeare until about 2/3rd through the movie. I knew Hamnet sounded like Hamlet, but I did not know how it was connected. In fact, as I walked into the theater, I thought to myself that I had no idea what this movie was about.

We meet Agnes and Will, who fall in love and get married. Agnes was initially believed to be the daughter of a forest witch, but that never felt like it was addressed. Agnes gets pregnant. They have a daughter and then have twins later, one of which seemed to be born dead, but survived.

As I mentioned, I had no idea this was meant to be Shakespeare and I also did not know that he had a son named Hamnet who died when he was 11, supposedly from the plague. That was believed to be one of the influences for Shakespeare to write his best tragedies, including Hamlet.

I was extremely bored through the first half of this movie. I was not enjoying it at all. However, there were two amazing performances in the heart of this film. Paul Mescal played Will and he did a great job, but the stand out performance in the film belonged to Jessie Buckley as Agnes. Even at the times when I was feeling bored with the story and the script, Jessie Buckley was bringing it hard.

I had heard that this was an Oscar possible nominated film and I was ready to rip that idea apart. There was an amazing scene with Buckley and Jacobi Jupe, who was playing Hamnet, but it still had not swayed my opinion.

Then, the ending happened. The ending was unbelievable! It absolutely took the rest of this movie and elevated it to a level that I could not believe. I came out of the film with serious feels. Most of the time, the example is the ending is bad and damaged the memory of a film. This time, I have a much more positive thought of the film because of the finale.

If Jessie Buckley does not win the Academy Award for this performance, they should just stop giving out Best Actress Awards. Jessie Buckley is sensational and totally carries the film on her back. I would have totally checked out from this had it not been for Jessie Buckley.

Oscar winner Chloe Zhao does a great job with the direction of this film. I loved the ending of this.

3.5 stars

The Thin Blue Line (1988)

Posted on by

January 21

The Genre-ary for today is the oldest of the documentaries I watched for this DailyView so far. It was from 1988 and it was called The Thin Blue Line. It documented the case of wrongfully convicted cop killer Randall Adams, who had always claimed that he was innocent. After the release of this documentary, the case against Adams was reexamined and he was set free.

Randall Adams had run out of gas and had been picked up by a 16-year old runaway named David Harris. Adams and Harris hung out for the night, drinking, smoking marijuana and going to the movies. Adams claimed that he then returned to his motel and went to sleep. Harris claimed that they went out again and were pulled over by the police and that Adams shot the cop and drove off, leaving the officer to die in the street.

Apparently, the prosecutors and investigators targeted Adams as their killer, even going as far as to give Harris immunity to be their eyewitness. There were other eyewitnesses whom had driven past the pull over before it turned deadly. These witnesses claimed to have seen Adams too. However, these witnesses were dubious to say the least.

The documentary interviewed both Adams and Harris in an effort to tell the story that had happened. There were also interviews from the defense attorneys, the judge, and several of the police involved before and after.

Another thing that this doc did was to use recreations to show the events of the night through a variety of POVs. At the time, most documentary films did not use this technique in its story telling methods and it gave The Thin Blue Line a different feel. In 2025, some of these recreations were cheesy, but I did get used to them as the film went on. The film also used a soundtrack, scored by Phillip Glass, that was very memorable and created a mood for the film.

This was extremely influential in the world of the documentary. Many true crime style docs take concepts and storytelling techniques from The Thin Blue Line. It was a compelling story at the heart of the doc, with interviews with everyone involved.

Gladiator II

Posted on by

There are not a ton of Oscar winning movies that have gotten sequels, especially over 20 years later. However, director Ridley Scott has done it with Gladiator II, a sequel to the Oscar winner from 2001.

According to IMDB, “After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius (Paul Mescal) is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.“

I was disappointed with this movie. I had not expected it to be anywhere as good as the first film was, but this was considerably lesser than that movie. There were several problems with the movie.

Before I get into the negatives, there were some good things about the movie. I did not hate this film, and they did have some good things. Starting off with Denzel Washington, who is as good here as he always is. Denzel was excellent as the manipulator/villain of the piece and he brought that slimy feel to him.

Another positive for the film was most of the action was pretty good. The fights are brutal and well constructed, especially the hand to hand battles and the swordplay. There was some cool animal fights too. I saw a criticism that the Romans may not have used them in the coliseum and I could not care about that at all. Most of the animals were awesome.

However, there were sharks too and that was just one of the most ridiculous of all the animals involved. That was easily the worst coliseum scene we got.

So the problems. First, the film is too long. You could have trimmed 15-20 minutes off the run time of the film and make it feel tighter. Next, the writing, specifically the dialogue, was just not very good.

Another major issue I had was the first ten minutes, which nearly lost me. There was a weird, almost James Bond type introduction and I felt like it was such a waste. The classical music was great, but what was the purpose of this? Then, the story started and they introduced Lucius’s wife, who was an archer, and I immediately thought to myself that there was no way she was making it through the movie, and I was proven right almost immediately. The problem with that was that they tried to make this relationship the key to Lucius’s anger, but we barely got to know her so I did not feel anything when she died.

I liked Pedro Pascal in the film, but I felt like his character was muddled and inconsistent. The twin emperors, played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger, were cartoon characters and out of place in this movie. Paul Mescal is fine as Lucius, but his motivation was shaky too. Was he anger over his love’s death or something about his mother?

As I said, I did not hate this movie, but I did not like it much. It lost me early and was never good enough to pull out of the spiral. The original Gladiator is considered one of the best films by many, so you should go watch that. This one is just not up to snuff.

2.8 stars

Gladiator (2000)

Posted on by

This past week, I saw the trailer for Gladiator II, and that made me think about the original film from 2000. It has been a long time since I had seen the original and so I thought it would be a good idea to rewatch the Oscar winner before the sequel comes out in November.

Gladiator won several Academy Awards including Best Picture and best Lead Actor. It is an epic film well deserving of such honors. Russell Crowe, Juaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielson, Richard Harris, Djimon Hounsou, and Oliver Reed led the cast of the Roman epic, directed brilliantly by Ridley Scott. How Scott did not receive the Best Director Oscar for this masterpiece is beyond me (I take nothing away from Steven Soderbergh, though I have never seen Traffic, the film in which he won that year).

There are some criticisms about Gladiator not being historically accurate. I will not hold that against any movie that is not a documentary. I fail to see why that would be a reasonable or applicable criticism of any movie based in a historical time period.

According to IMDB, “Maximus is a powerful Roman general, loved by the people and the aging Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Before his death, the Emperor chooses Maximus to be his heir over his own son, Commodus, and a power struggle leaves Maximus and his family condemned to death. The powerful general is unable to save his family, and his loss of will allows him to get captured and put into the Gladiator games until he dies. The only desire that fuels him now is the chance to rise to the top so that he will be able to look into the eyes of the man who will feel his revenge.”

The amazing large scale battle scenes are unbelievably shot and directed by Scott. The action is top notch and beautifully shot in all its bloody violence. The smaller scale action inside the Coliseum was every bit as well directed and perhaps even more impressive. The scene involving the tigers was thrilling with every step and the final showdown between Maximus and Commodus was designed perfectly, very satisfyingly as well as emotionally. Visual effects were another Oscar win for the team from Gladiator.

The sound of this movie was masterful. Gladiator did receive the Oscar for best Sound and it was well deserved again. The sound of the clanking swords to the sound of the metal slicing through skin and bone are chilling.

The performances were breathtaking in many ways. Russell Crowe displayed such a visceral power in his anger and grief that fueled his revenge, yet never got in the way of the man he was. He was matched by the jealousy and insecurity of Juaquin Phoenix. He becomes so very sinister during the run of this movie, all built on the sense of loss of the love of his father.

Crowe and Phoenix do not share a ton of scenes, but when they are together, the energy is palpable.

“Are you not entertained?” I absolutely was. This was an amazing film and I certainly hope that the sequel coming later in the year is a worthy successor to this.

All of Us Strangers (2023)

Posted on by

June 20, 2024

All of Us Strangers is the next film on the schedule for the June Swoon 3, and it is a lovely movie that deals with deep seeded loss and grief, while not falling into the trap of making the film maudlin or depressing.

Adam Scott gives a tremendous performance as Adam, a screenwriter who has a chance encounter with Harry (Paul Mescal) at his apartment building. Harry was drunk and looking for someone to spend time with, but Adam rejects him. Then, Adam goes to see and spend time with his parents (Claire Foy and Jamie Bell) at his childhood home. The only drawback… Adam’s parents died in a tragic car crash when he was a little boy.

As the audience member, you are never quite sure through the run of the film what was going on. Was this a ghost story? Was this all invented inside Adam’s mind? What exactly was happening? The uncertainty of the film played well as you connect with Adam and feel the pain that his unresolved grief was causing in him.

The film was beautifully shot. Andrew Haigh was the director and he did a fantastic job constructing the scenes, such as the trip to the night club, which had a dream-like aesthetic to it. It helped to create the mood of the piece, keeping the magical feel of the film while still rooting everything in the loneliness and grief felt by Adam.

I also thought the ending of the film was wonderfully constructed. While I had an idea by this point of what was going on, the actual truth of the story was unexpected and fit amazingly in the structure of the story. The very end was a lovely design to express such a hope of the world.

The four main actors: Adam Scott, Paul Mescal, Claire Foy and Jamie Bell are astonishing in these performances and their interactions with the others. The performances are the best part of the film, but far from the only parts that make this a beautiful film.