//

Glicked: Monkeys, Magic and Marcus Aurelius

11 mins read
Source: The Daily Mail


Two movies. One day. 

First, there was “Barbenheimer.” Now, there’s “Glicked.” 

Hollywood’s newest double-feature portmanteau hit theaters nationwide on November 22, 2024. “Gladiator II” grossed $55 million on opening weekend, while “Wicked” shattered records for a musical adaptation, earning an astounding $144 million. 

As additions to beloved franchises, both films had substantial expectations to meet, leaving Fieldston students and faculty with mixed opinions. Jon M. Chu’s “Wicked” continues the story of Victor Fleming’s “The Wizard of Oz” and brings the celebrated Broadway musical to the big screen. Meanwhile, Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator II” immerses audiences once more in the grandeur and carnage of Ancient Rome, continuing the tale introduced in the 2000 Oscar-winning original. 

Are both films worth seeing? 

“Wicked: Part 1”

“Are people born wicked? Or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?” 

Long before Dorothy dropped into Oz, there was Glinda (Ariana Grande), the Good Witch of the North, and Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), the Wicked Witch of the West. The plot of “Wicked”  explores the unlikely friendship between Elphaba, a misunderstood, green-skinned girl and Glinda, a bubbly and popular aristocrat, as they navigate their growing identities and fulfill their respective destinies. By reimagining the world of The Wizard of Oz, “Wicked” challenges the idea that people can be easily labeled as heroes or villains and reveals the untold backstory behind Oz’s most iconic characters. 

This highly anticipated movie adaption has stirred up both excitement and debate at Fieldston.

For some community members, watching the movie was nothing short of magical. Angela Landrein-Buendia (Form III) gave the film an especially enthusiastic review: “I thought it was one of the best movies ever. So good. 10/10.” 

For Arianna Rigos (Form VI), the movie was “really cute.” Although it wasn’t “life-changing,” Rigos enjoyed the music and shared that she went with her mom, “so it was a female family affair.”

 It was also a family outing for Grace Yun, Upper School Assistant Principal of Academic Life: “I went with my children. They loved it as much as I did – it was visually stunning, and ‘Defying Gravity’ gave me chills.”

Upper School English Teacher Dr. Nikki Willis loved the film “wholeheartedly.” She said, “Ariana delivered. Elphaba was spectacular. Ariana did what she needed to do for Glinda. In every way, I was so pleased with it.” 

Fieldston Acting Teacher Stephanie Stone also sang the cast’s praises: “Cynthia Erivo brought something to the role that nobody could have. She connected with it in a really deep and empathetic way. Ariana Grande was amazing, too. I thought it was all really wonderful, and I cried several times.”

As a musical theatre fan, Malaika Singh (Form V) enjoyed the movie but was initially skeptical: “I was really worried it wasn’t going to stay true to the original plot and that the songs would change…but I ended up really liking it.” 

However, others had mixed opinions. They enjoyed the movie overall but felt certain elements could have been improved. Michael Hirschfield (Form V) said it was a “must-see” but believed that they should “uncast Ariana Grande’s boyfriend,” referring to Ethan Slater, who played Boq. 

Some believed the film didn’t live up to its Broadway predecessor. Noah Miller (Form IV) voiced that he “didn’t love the movie” and thought that “the Broadway musical was better.” 

Marcus White (Form IV) added, “I thought it was a really good movie. But I definitely liked the Broadway musical more.”

Another source of controversy was the film’s length. The original musical has a runtime of 2 hours and 45 minutes, whereas the movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes long and only covers half the story. Part Two is set to come out next fall, giving this adaptation a year-long intermission. Some were bothered by this: Javin Gasca (Form III) said: “I thought it was good, but it was really long, especially since I saw it on Broadway. I think it was way too long just for the first act.” 

Charlotte Wulfsohn (Form V) agreed: “It had a good plot and interesting storyline, but the movie felt long. They should have cut out an hour.” 

Margo Lynch-Kahn (Form III) disagreed: “It was terrific. It was really long, but it didn’t feel that way. It went by very quickly.” 

Myla Mocamovitz (Form III) added, “I thought it was fantastic. It didn’t feel long.” 

Gladiator II

“There was once a dream that was Rome.” 

Set sixteen years after the events of the Oscar-winning original, the film follows Lucius (Paul Mescal), son of Maximus –  the protagonist of the first movie. Overall, the plot closely mirrors the original “Gladiator,” as Lucius fights to avenge a dead wife and pursue his grandfather Marcus Aurelius’ dream of a just Rome. In a twist of fate, the boy who once idolized the Spaniard is now a gladiator himself, seeking vengeance against not one, but two mad emperors – as if Rome needed more – alongside his mother Lucilla (Connie Nielson) and stepfather, General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal). The gladiator-owner Macrinus (Denzel Washington) stars as the new Proximo minus the redemption arc. The bloody, extravagant spectacles in the Colosseum surpass those in the first film, including a naumachia – a staged naval battle fought on a fully flooded arena floor. 

Are you not entertained? Many in the Fieldston community were not, feeling that the film didn’t add anything new or meaningful to the existing franchise. Bob Montera, history teacher and faculty advisor of the Fieldston News, commented: “I’m a guy who likes all movies. I’m a guy who even likes bad movies. This is a bad movie to like.” 

Montera continued, “The main redeeming thing about an otherwise bad movie is Denzel Washington’s performance, which is just marvelously on target and over the top. If you think he is gonna do something redeemable, he doesn’t. And that’s what’s brilliant about the film. He just relishes being a bad guy. Everything else is pretty formulaic; you’ve seen it before. But I’m still glad that I went.” 

Kiki Gilbert (Form V) said it was “terrible. The storyline was completely flawed, and there was not enough introduction for the characters from the previous movie.” 

Stephen Lowke, a Latin teacher and expert on all things Rome, also weighed in. “It’s a little difficult for classicists to watch,” he admitted, citing issues with the portrayal of “individual gladiators and political and social machinations.” He also expressed annoyance over the misuse of Latin, saying, “As a Latin teacher, it was frustrating because I would see Latin inscriptions, and they were all wrong. They could have called me to get the correct Latin, but someone apparently decided to make it up,” he joked. 

However, he did also acknowledge the film’s entertainment value. “Go see ‘Gladiator II,’ watch it, enjoy it – or don’t – but be cautious if you’re taking a Roman history test afterward. Don’t rely on it to be factual or historically accurate.” 

Some were more merciful. Henry Mitnick (Form III) believed the film was “exceptional.” 

Sumi McMahon-Baek (Form V) analyzed it through a political lens: “I think the movie is a powerful commentary on violence, corruption and the state of governments. The government structure and power dynamics of Ancient Rome are similar to those we see in the modern day.” 

India Haberkern (Form IV) also had a positive review: “I haven’t seen the first one, and a lot of people said the first one was better, but I thought this one was a good film.”  

For those watching both, be prepared for lots of monkeys (flying or baboons), plenty of magic and the many relatives of Marcus Aurelius vying for the curule throne.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from Blog