Skip to main content

If anyone knows how to take on a slugger like Drago, it would be Rocky.

Creed II
(2018)

(SPOILERS) It wouldn’t be such a bad thing that this is a by-the-numbers, Stallone co-scripted sequel – after all, part of the pleasure of sports movies is their adherence to tried-and-tested formula – if only it had been made with a degree of evident enthusiasm. The (Sly-directed) follow-ups to the original Rocky weren’t exactly artful, but they knew how to rouse their audience. Creed II can’t even get the training montage right.

And there’s a problem using the Rocky theme (one the director seemed to acknowledge); by all means make Creed his own thing and use as few call-backs as possible, but if you do throw it in there (it appears early on), the audience will expect it to come back stirringly, especially with strains of the theme used throughout. Bottling it at the crucial juncture means the build-up can only lead to an underwhelming finish.

That kind of faltering occurs throughout Creed II, though, with Juel Taylor and Stallone going through the motions of giving an Michael B Jordan’s Adonis an arc (dilemmas over self-doubt, moving to LA, mixed-up motivation, fatherhood issues, mentor problems) but forgetting to make him sympathetic with it. He wins the title at the beginning of the movie, then suffers a humiliating defeat to Viktor Drago (brick shithouse heavyweight boxer Florian Munteanu), but doesn’t do enough to earn trouncing the Russian in their subsequent return match.

Indeed, as disappointingly undernourished as the characters of Ivan (Dolph Lundgren, an always watchable performer, and with this and Aquaman, hopefully he’ll continue to be granted the occasional release from his low-budget actioner dungeon) and his son are, their relationship is still more affecting than anything between Rocky and Adonis. Turns out Ivan was rejected by his country following his ‘80s defeat and is thus motivated to make junior a champ; junior in turn is motivated by the thought of winning mum Brigitte Nielsen’s favour. None of which means very much until Ivan shows he really does care for his son deep down by stopping the second fight before Viktor gets slaughtered. And you know what? The moment actually packs a sorely-needed punch. Ultimately, though, it only serves to underline that, as much as these movies are the furthest thing from the cinematic equivalent of great literature, the ample scope Creed II had to explore contrasting generations facing ghosts of the past has been all-but squandered.

It’s ironic too, going back to the Rocky theme element, that the only time the picture conveys a sense of substance is when its cutting back to the melancholic twilight years of its now supporting ex-champ. Stallone plays the not-that-bright-but-full-of-no-frills-wisdom veteran better than probably anything else he’s done, but continually referring back to Adonis’ need for his mentor, and things only coming together for him when Rocky finally agrees to come back, further emphasises that the lead character hasn’t been allowed to stand on his own two feet (likewise, there’s more heft to Rocky’s reunion with his son, Milo Ventimiglia, than the intended payoff of Adonis going to Apollo’s grave with his family).

Still, enough of the necessary ingredients are in place that this could have been as enjoyable as the first Creed, if only director Steve Caple Jr had been up to the challenge. He fluffs the montages and throws the fights (the number of obvious pulled punches would break any dramatic tension in the ring, if he hadn’t entirely failed to energise the proceedings in the first place). There’s also a very daft bit where Adonis’ team parade to the ring with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) leading them in song. No doubt there’ll be a Creed III, and no doubt Stallone will be back too, but Creed II suggests a creatively-stalled franchise before it’s really got started.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.