“Flow” is directed by Gints Zilbalodis (Away, Oasis) and is an animated film featuring no voice actors and no dialogue. This film is about a stray cat whose home is devastated by a great flood. After finding refuge on a boat, the feline must team up with different kinds of animals and cooperate with them despite everyone’s differences.
I saw the trailer for “Flow” once when I was in the cinema. Specifically, when I was watching one of my favorite movies of the year, “Look Back.” The film looked different but wonderfully simple. I am not much a cat person, nor an animal person really. Nevertheless, I was intrigued. But I almost forgot about it until it came out. I saw this film on December 21st, the same weekend that another big cat movie was coming out, “Mufasa: The Lion King.” I had no interest in supporting yet another one of Disney’s live-action remakes. 2016’s “Jungle Book”-aside, which has truly stunning visual effects, none of them really interested me. So I decided to go see “Flow” instead since I had the time. I have not heard a single bad thing about this movie before I went in, so naturally I should like this movie right?…
Of course! Ladies and gentlemen, whatever hype comes your way regarding “Flow,” believe it. This movie is amazing!
“Flow” is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is up there. It is certainly one of the best animated movies of the year. If it ends up taking some of the Best Animated Feature categories during the awards shows this season, I will applaud its victory. My top 10 BEST movies of the year is coming within the next couple weeks or so, and right now in terms of animations, “Flow” belongs in the big three and has a chance of getting on the list, or at least an honorable mention. You have “Flow,” the recently mentioned “Look Back,” and the Hollywood-produced flick “The Wild Robot.” When it comes to that last film, “Flow” has some striking similarities to it. For one thing, both heavily involve animals. Granted, the animals are utilized in significantly different ways. “The Wild Robot” uses animals as secondary characters, and they are voiced by people. As for “Flow,” not only do the animals lack human voices, they are literally the only characters in this movie. No humans, no robots, no aliens. I mean, humans are animals. Still, I am sure many of you have the common sense to understand my point. Both films even present a possible reality that society could face if we are not careful enough. Both films seem to imply that mankind has ruined the earth with our own activities and did not do enough to deal with climate change. There are scenes in each picture where you can see risen water levels, particularly around manmade structures and buildings. In fact, as established previously, the film is about a cat trying to survive after a great flood.
Another similarity I can state is that I have iffy thoughts on the animation. Although I will be fair to “Flow” because it is not produced at as high of a budget as say a DreamWorks or Illumination movie, therefore I can forgive the film’s cheap look every once in a while. That said, there are times where it does look cheap. I will compliment the animation for its vibrant color palette and smooth feel. That said, if were to take certain frames out of context, I would say those frames could end up feeling cheap. At the same time, however, considering the budget of this movie, €3.5 million, which translates to $3.6 million, the animation does present a decent amount of detail. The animation style of this film, even though it feels minimalistic, is by no means bad. It is actually somewhat lifelike. If these animals were in our world, I would buy them if they had a few more specks of detail added to their bodies. There were also several shots in the movie that put me into the frame, not just because of the detail on display, but because of how long such shots went on. Some moments of this film kind of reminded me of action scenes from “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Atomic Blonde,” or “Zombieland: Double Tap,” where the sequence is all done in a way to make things look as if it were a single shot. “Flow” has one or two great shots that go on for an extended time. Safe to say, I was captivated.
Speaking of things that are lifelike, I admire this movie’s unique approach to have no spoken dialogue. Literally the only utterances in this film are animal sounds. This is an animated movie, and I know that these kinds of films often do well with children. There were children at my screening for the record. Although I wonder how this particular film is going to sit with the children who end up watching it. In films like these, where animals dominate the cast, children are often used to seeing them speak our own languages. I think a film like this could be a good watch for children if you want to give them a challenge. The film never “tells” the audience what it is about. It trusts the audience to understand what is happening. Even if you were to present this film to a child and they do not quite understand what is happening, I am sure that they will like watching the animals. I am sure they will enjoy the spectacle. I think there are things that they can appreciate. Although if this film were to get repeat viewings, they might pick up more as they rewatch it. I often talk about how accessible Pixar movies are not just for children, but also adults. “Flow” is in the same boat. I think this is a great movie for all ages that does not resort to immature gags or tired humor. Kind of like Pixar’s “Wall-E,” very little is said in the movie, but the film itself has a lot to say regarding our future, and offers an exciting adventure at the same time.
As I said before, I am not an animal person. Therefore, it should also not surprise you that I am not a pet person. However, I have been around dogs extensively so I know some of the realistic tendencies that were on display from those specific characters during the movie. I think dog owners will appreciate those being in the film. I think if you are a pet owner and you watch this movie, or at the very least, if you have been around these animals for extended periods of time, you will be able to appreciate this film for the little actions it sprinkles in the script here and there.
In the end, “Flow” is a must see movie that ranks as one of the best animations of the year. The style is sometimes iffy, but also kind of charming. The film has a lively adventure, great score, and ultimately, something for everyone. If you do not mind movies without dialogue, this should definitely be a priority on your movie to-do list. I have no clue on what the replay value for this movie will be, but I think that “Flow” is a movie that everyone should watch at least once. I am going to give “Flow” a 9/10.
“Flow” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Ladies and gentlemen, we are down to the final three movies I saw in theaters in 2024! My next reviews are going to be for “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” Once these reviews are done, it is time once again for the end of the year countdowns! Look forward to my top 10 WORST movies of 2024 and my top 10 BEST movies of 2024, coming to Scene Before next year. If you want to see these posts and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Flow?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated movie you saw this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is directed by Jeff Fowler, who also directed the previous “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies. This film stars Jim Carrey (Batman Forever, The Mask), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, The Afterparty), Krysten Ritter (Veronica Mars, Gilmore Girls), Shemar Moore (S.W.A.T., Criminal Minds), Colleen O’Shaughnessey (Digimon, Naruto), James Marsden (X-Men, Superman Returns), Tika Sumpter (Mixed-ish, Ride Along), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), and Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick). This film follows Sonic and his team as they face a new enemy, Shadow the Hedgehog. When the team realizes the potential dangers of Shadow’s power, they choose to band together with an unlikely ally to stop him.
Video game adaptations have had an iffy history at best. Yes, on the television side you have hits like “The Last of Us” and “Arcane,” but as far as movies go, there is not a single title I imagine most people would consider to be a masterpiece. Sure, the 1995 “Mortal Kombat” had some charm to it. It is definitely not a horrible movie. Same goes with 2023’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” which I have no plans to watch ever again, but I would be lying to you if I said it was inferior to 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.” adaptation.
The “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies have made for an interesting franchise. And I do believe “interesting” is the best word to use in this case. Because neither of the two movies I have seen up to this point have been bad. I thought the first one in particular is quite fun and offers replay value. It has a simple but effective story. Ben Schwartz is a great pick to voice Sonic. Jim Carrey as Robotnik may go down as some of the best casting of the decade. The climax is really fun. Overall, it is a good time for all ages. Then we get to “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” which maintains some of the positives of the original. You have good visual effects, nice sound design, and a pretty cool third act. But the film also drags because there is an abysmally irritating wedding subplot that makes no sense. There were other things to make up for it. I even gave the film a 6/10 in my review. But that score was pretty generous if you asked me. For the record, I bought the original “Sonic the Hedgehog” and watched it at home after checking it out in the cinema. The same cannot be said for the sequel.
They say you are only as good as your last project. And while I had a positive experience with “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” I still found it disappointing. So my expectations for “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” while they were not sitting right at rock bottom, were also not that high. But those expectations shot up with a pretty solid marketing campaign. I thought by the end it gave away a little too much, but the trailers were funny and promised something a little darker than the other two installments. I was ultimately onboard.
So what did I think? Eh, the movie’s fine.
“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is in fact a step up from “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” But the movie is also nowhere near as good as the original “Sonic the Hedgehog.” Though if I had to name a positive for not only this movie, but all three movies so far, it is that they maintain a sense of consistency. They all feel like they belong in the same universe and work well off each other. As a trilogy, the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies are not quite as good as say “Lord of the Rings.” But just like “Lord of the Rings,” the movies feel perfectly interconnected. Coincidentally, both of these trilogies are done through a singular vision. All the “Lord of the Rings” movies were directed by Peter Jackson, and all the “Sonic the Hedgehog” installments were helmed by Jeff Fowler. If there is anyone who is perhaps responsible for “Sonic’s” consistency, Fowler is perhaps the most likely candidiate. They even got the same writers for all three movies. Pat Casey and Josh Miller wrote the first movie together. The two ended up coming back for the sequels along with John Whittington.
This leads me to perhaps the most robust assertion I could perhaps make about “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you really liked “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel, you are going to like “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you find those first two movies to be bad, then chances are you will feel the same way about this latest installment. As for me, I made it clear I liked the first two movies. I did not love either of them, in fact, I would even say “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is barely passable, so to have the third one find itself on the lower end of my positive scale comes as almost no surprise whatsoever.
One of my complaints about the second movie was the dialogue. For the record, the dialogue in the second film feels similar to the first. But every other minute Sonic is spewing out some random pop culture joke or some semblance of words that come close to such a thing and not many of them land. This film seems to maintain my dialogue distaste. There is a lot of obnoxious chit chat and a lot of the lines feel overly cartoony. Yes, I know this film has animated characters. But even for something like this, it comes off as overblown. That said, the film does still get the occasional laugh from our hero characters.
However, the biggest laughs in the film, perhaps unsurprisingly, come from Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is back in this film doing double duty. Not only is he back for his third portrayal of Doctor Ivo Robotnik, but he is also playing his grandfather, Professor Gerald Robotnik. Seeing Jim Carrey play both of these characters at the same time makes for a weird, wacky, and fun experience like no other. I think Carrey is the best part of these movies. I say that even though I do think his material in the second film hindered his performance a bit. As for this third film, it is nice to see Carrey getting some funny, ludicrous material to work with. Every time he was on screen, I had a grin on my face.
This film also introduces a new hedgehog character, Shadow. Keanu Reeves plays the role, which I think is a great choice. Having heard the character’s voice in certain video games, this is fairly decent match. Also when it comes to Shadow’s design, Reeves’ voice seems to mesh well with the character. But as much as I liked the trailers for this film, my one worry was that Shadow would sound too much like Keanu Reeves was playing himself. I felt a lot of John Wick-isms in his execution. I like “John Wick,” but one problem I have with celebrity voice casting is that the celebrities sound so much like themselves that they fail to blend in with their character. Having seen Shadow, I can say there are scenes where Keanu clearly sounds like he is playing himself, but by no means is he phoning it in. I saw a little bit of Keanu in the performance, yet simultaneously, I saw all Shadow if that makes any sense.
Also to a certain degree, I liked seeing Shadow’s backstory. While I am one to complain about this movie being a bit obnoxious at times, I think Shadow’s backstory occasionally makes for some solid visual storytelling. There is even some decent dialogue. The film also develops a nice little commonality between Sonic and Shadow, particularly how the two were able to find humans with whom they became best friends sometime after their arrival to earth. We saw this previously with Sonic and Tom Wachowski, AKA “Donut Lord.” Shadow seems to develop a similar connection with a young girl named Maria.
If I were a young kid watching this movie, I would probably have a great time with it. There is a lot of action, adventure, and humor. This would probably be a frequent watch in my house if I were 9 or 10 years old. As a 25 year old, I am trying to think about what this movie teaches our children. Sure, it is over the top and zany to no end. But I think it delivers positive lessons. Shadow’s presence in the movie makes me think lots of children will be introduced to the potential negatives of animal testing. On the hero’s side of the spectrum, the film also showcases the importance of teamwork and the complications of making the right choice.
I talked about how I think “Sonic 3” is a step up from “Sonic 2,” and there is another improvement regarding this film I have not mentioned yet, the humans. For one thing, the humans’ involvement in “Sonic 3” raise far fewer questions as to the logistics of the plot. There are some moments of the movie in general that I thought were a bit far-fetched, but still. We also tend to focus more on Sonic and his crew this time around as opposed to the humans. Granted, Tom and Maddie do play a significant role in the film. Though their use throughout the runtime is much more pleasing compared to the last film. This film is also noticeably tighter than “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” Though it should come as no surprise considering “Sonic 3” is 13 minutes shorter. But they seemed to have trimmed out the fluff so to speak. In terms of plot, characters, and overall details, the film is definitely more complicated than this franchise’s kickstarter. But by no means does the film feel terribly overstuffed or boring. There is never a dull moment in “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” There are slower moments, there are cheesy moments. However not once did I want to fall asleep watching this movie.
I said before that one of my complaints about this movie is that it is a little overly cartoony. And if you watch cartoons, you would know that the characters from one episode to the next behave very similarly to how they do in the last. That makes sense for consistency’s sake. You can even say the same thing in other television shows done in live-action, but it is especially noticeable in cartoons. I watched this movie and I noticed not only are Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles very similar to how they behave in the second movie, Knuckles in particular almost feels too similar. Sure, we learn that apparently he has picked up some pop culture knowledge. We see him make a “Pokemon” joke early on in the film. Even with that in mind, Knuckles still sounds like a fish out of water when it comes to concepts with which many earthlings would happen to understand. I do not know exactly how long this movie takes place after “Sonic 2,” but if Knuckles is still behaving the way he is, the timejump cannot be that far. At least for logic’s sake I hope that is the case.
Throughout the review we have talked about just how consistent this property has been. This has resulted in positives like Jim Carrey continuing to kill it as Robotnik and some action-packed third acts. But it has also resulted in negatives like a lack of character development or nonsensical scenes. There is one more consistency that if this franchise were to continue for some time, I hope gets addressed. By the end of this film, I left feeling the stakes in this franchise are minimal. I am not going to dive into detail, but the “Sonic the Hedgehog” franchise somewhat feels like the “Fast & Furious” franchise for a younger audience. Yes, both are action-packed films involving speed and globetrotting missions. But the further we get into the franchise, the more I am convinced that several characters are perhaps either invincible or lucky.
I understand that the “Sonic” franchise is a hit with younger viewers and the people behind it would therefore not want to make it too dark. But this franchise keeps adding new faces that it just makes you wonder when the heck it is going to suddenly get rid of one of them. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a decent moneymaker for Paramount. As good as it may be now to have all the movies feel the same, it also risks running the franchise into the ground and having it feel bland. We have seen this problem with the Michael Bay-directed “Transformers” franchise, another popular product of Paramount. While the movies tend to have slight differences, they for the most part come off as carbon copies of one another. Despite my complaint, if Jeff Fowler and the same writing team were to come back for “Sonic the Hedgehog 4,” I would be onboard. They have a proven track record, even if it is not the greatest. Although I think it would be fun to see someone put their own creative spin into the franchise.
Also, one more consistency to bring up, this film has some extra material during the credits. There is a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene. Stick around for both of them.
In the end, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is not a bad movie. In fact, by the standards of video game movies, it is one of the better ones. Despite that, the movie is still not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is a step up from the last “Sonic” outing, but still not good enough to rival the original. Also, as far as video game movies go, I think it is slightly more watchable than “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” This feels more like a movie compared to that film, which literally just comes off as an hour and a half of nonstop easter eggs and references just for the sake of forced nostalgia within a generic storyline. The voicework in this film, per usual, is top notch. The human characters are a noticeable improvement compared to the previous installment. Shadow is a nice addition to the franchise. But the jokes are off and on, the dialogue is a little too obnoxious, and I know this is a movie about a talking hedgehog, but even with that in mind, there are things in this film that feel a tad far-fetched. If you like the last two movies, this is definitely for you. If not, maybe go see something else. I am going to give “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” a 6/10.
“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for my thoughts on films including “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Sonic the Hedgehog 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is directed by Kenji Kamiyama (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Blade Runner: Black Lotus) and stars Brian Cox (Succession, X2: X-Men United), Gaia Wise (A Walk in the Woods, The Chelsea Detective), Luke Pasqualino (Skins, The Musketeers), and Miranda Otto (Talk to Me, War of the Worlds). This film is set 183 years before the original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy and is about the tale of Helm Hammerhand (Cox) and how his family went about defending themselves against an army of Dunlendings.
Just a warning for those who need to know… I have not read a single “Lord of the Rings” book. I have not lacked desire to read the books, I just never got around to it. But I have seen every single Peter Jackson-directed “Lord of the Rings” film, including “The Hobbit” trilogy. I enjoyed all those movies. There are even a couple of those movies I would even considerto be amongst the greatest of all time. If you have not seen these movies, you are missing out and owe it to yourself to give them a watch at least once in your life.
It has been ten years since the last theatrically released “Lord of the Rings” film, specifically “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.” As a fan of these movies, I thought they had a good run, but I would have been fine knowing that is all we were getting. I am well aware on the TV side, “The Rings of Power” is doing well on Prime Video in terms of finding an audience after a couple seasons, but I cannot give my thoughts on it since I have not seen a single episode. Though when they announced a new animated “Lord of the Rings” film was coming, I was not against the idea, but my reaction to it reminds me of the reaction I had when I first heard about “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.” My thought was… “Okay then.” I was not completely uninterested, but I also was not going to be first in line to check it out.
Then I got the recommendation of my life, and I swear on my unborn children, this is a true story.
I went to a taping of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” in October and during a Q&A, Colbert picked me to ask him a question. I was one of three people. I asked him, “Have you seen any good movies lately?” To which he responds, “Yes.”
…
Following the audience’s laughter, he asks, “Would you like to know which ones?”
I say, “If you would like to tell me about them.”
That is when he recommends this movie. He saw it early. This is no surprise considering Colbert has established himself as a J.R.R. Tolkien and “Lord of the Rings” fanboy. He told the audience and I that the film matches the feel that he got out of the Tolkien books and the Peter Jackson films. Granted, I was aware that he was going to be hosting a panel for the film at New York Comic Con the next day, so this may as well be a plug for the movie.
That said, if it was good enough for Stephen Colbert, it was good enough for me.
So without dillydallying any longer, I thought the movie was fine.
As far as “The Lord of the Rings” film franchise goes, I think this is the weakest of the films I have seen so far. This is not to say it is bad. If anything it is just that most of the other ones are so good that this film easily pales in comparison to them. It is like when I watched “Lightyear.” I thought almost every “Toy Story” movie was a masterpiece of animation and storytelling, then we get to the “Lightyear” spinoff, which was fun but it did not have the impact on me that the “Toy Story” movies did.
I will admit, Colbert was correct on one thing. Tonally, this film feels like it belongs in Jackson’s Middle-earth. That said, it does so maybe to an unhealthy degree. The film is a nice welcoming back to that universe with the familiar title cards and Howard Shore’s music. For the record, Howard Shore did not do the music for this movie, it was instead composed by Stephen Gallagher, who I thought did an okay job. I am not going to go back to listen to the score on my own time unlike some of Shore’s work, but I thought it fit the movie. There are also some pieces of fan service that have ties to the Jackson films, including one towards the end that involves someone’s voice that audiences have not heard in a new film for a long, long time. I thought it was a clever addon towards the film’s conclusion.
“The War of the Rohirrim” is done in the style of an anime. You have this colorful 2D look to the film with a rough pace to it. When I watched the trailer for this film previously, I thought it looked cool. Having seen the movie, I would say it is cool to a degree, but also kind of underwhelming. There are many scenes where we see some vibrant colors, finely detailed characters, and some nice landscapes. But there are other scenes that either lack detail, feel slapped together, done on the cheap, or flat. They lack a sense of realism. Now I know you can get away with a lack of realism in animation. But this lack of realism honestly equals a lack of flair at times.
The same can be said for the actual journey of the film and what we see our hero, specifically Hera, go through. I will give credit for the film for one thing, nearly each and every scene, even if it is subtle, oozes with conflict. Who is gonna live? Who is gonna die? Will our hero make it? The film is a lot of things, but uneventful is not one of them. Speaking of Hera, Gaia Wise does a great job voicing her. Wise’s resume is not huge, but I would not mind seeing her in more projects. Though as I watched the movie, the progression of the story seemed to lack unpredictability or a sense of originality. The structure feels familiar. Granted, even the better “Lord of the Rings” films are not that complex when it comes to the plot as they are with the world involving said plot. Most of the films are essentially about the characters navigating from point A to point B. This is not as much the case with “The War of the Rohirrim,” which spends most of its time around one specific portion of Middle Earth. The scope feels a bit smaller. But the earlier films were simply much more well executed in terms of bringing the best out of a familiar journey. Not to mention, for the time they came out, Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films had monumental special effects, whereas the animation for this film, while definitely different, lacks innovation.
“The War of the Rohirrim” is a standalone “Lord of the Rings” project. There are no continuations planned for it. By that logic, this should make “The War of the Rohirrim” a good watch in the franchise if you do not want to worry about keeping up with the greater lore. While this is true, I will also say if you are a more casual “Lord of the Rings” fan or someone looking for a place to start, I do not think “The War of the Rohirrim” is a priority. Is it a good movie? Yes. If anything, while the negatives stand out, I think I lean a little more positive when it comes to my overall verdict. While Hera’s journey has cliches, it is still engaging. The soundwork for the film is quite solid. Tonally, this film is very good. If you love Brian Cox’s voice, you will hear plenty of it in this film. Every time Cox speaks as Helm Hammerhand, he steals the scene. If you are a “Lord of the Rings” casual, there is a chance you might walk out of the movie thinking it is a thumbs up. If you are perhaps a more hardcore fan of the franchise, there could be something more for you. But I also think most people who watch this movie will end up saying that it is not as good as any of the films in Jackson’s original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. As for ranking this film against “The Hobbit” trilogy, I am not sure. I know it has its fans, and I am one of them. I personally find “Desolation of Smaug” to be one of my favorite movies. But if it were a Friday night, I ordered a pizza, and I needed a movie to go with it, I might put on “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” which I thought to be the weakest of the “Lord of the Rings” installments for a long time, before watching “The War of the Rohirrim” again.
Although speaking of “An Unexpected Journey,” this brings me to a negative I sometimes found with both that film and “The War of the Rohirrim.” As engaged as I was in the journey, I wish I found myself more attached to some of the characters. I do not think I am going to remember some of these characters’ names a couple years from now. If you want a good movie, watch “The War of the Rohirrim.” But if you are looking for the best possible “Lord of the Rings” experience, Peter Jackson might have some better options available.
In the end, “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” was a fine time at the movies, especially compared to the film this one opened against, “Kraven the Hunter.” Both of these films are flops at this point. Neither of them likely have any chance of making their budgets back. But if you had to pick between one of these losers to watch in the cinema right now, then “The War of the Rohirrim” is definitely the winner. The film is a fun adventure that sometimes comes off as cliche. Some of these cliches are handled well, others not so much. The cast is likable, even if I am probably not going to remember some of these characters in a couple years. The action scenes have their moments. And for the most part, I was engaged in the journey. This film is not playing in a ton of places right now, but if you have a cinema loyalty subscription like AMC A-List or Regal Unlimited, use it for this film. Either that or find a showtime at matinee price. Even though I think the film looks cheap at times, the sound design makes up for it. There are moments where the film does become wonderfully obnoxious and immersive. I am going to give “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” a 6/10.
“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is now playing in theaters and is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” and “Babygirl.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power?” For those who have seen it, tell me your thoughts! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Kraven the Hunter” is directed by J.C. Chandor (A Most Violent Year, Margin Call) and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Gladiator II), Alessandro Nivola (Amsterdam, Jurassic Park III), Christopher Abbott (Girls, The Sinner), and Russell Crowe (Thor: Love and Thunder, Gladiator). This film is about Sergei Kravinoff, AKA Kraven the Hunter, and explores his complex relationship with his father in addition to how he uses his hunting skills to find targets and seek revenge.
Have you guys ever heard the saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,”? That phrase could almost apply to my experience with the Sony Spider-Man Universe. Note the use of the word almost. I say this because I basically go to see Sony’s Spider-Man villain standalone films out of obligation. Very rarely do I look forward to these movies. I think the closest I got to actually looking forward to one of these movies was “Morbius,” which ended up being my worst film of 2022. Although now that I think about it, I was intrigued by at least one trailer for “Venom: Let There be Carnage” before it came out. At least there is that.
For those playing catchup, let me give you the rundown so far on my thoughts on all the movies in the Sony Spider-Man universe… First “Venom” movie… Terrible! A lot of people seem to think it is okay. I think it is one of the most bland, boring, and horribly polished comic book movies ever made. Second “Venom” movie… Actually, pretty good. I thought the action was fun, it ups the one good thing about the original movie, specifically the humor. And it contains maybe the greatest PG-13 f-bomb in cinematic history. “Morbius…” A big fat joke! Other than Jared Leto’s performance and parts of the first act, there is nothing redeeming about this film. Oh yeah, let’s not forget that the marketing lied to its audience and the film may be responsible for the most tacked on and abysmal end credits scenes of all time. “Madame Web…” somehow WORSE than “Morbius!” Not even big name actors can save this abomination! Also, for some reason, this schlock saw the light of day despite being written by the same team who wrote “Morbius.” Bad dialogue, okay at best action, horrible camerawork, and another case of deceptive marketing. Genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen, and if you think I am saying this for dramatic effect, I have some magic beans to sell you. And lastly, “Venom: The Last Dance…” Safe to say, I was immensely bored. Other than the chemistry between Eddie and the titular character on top of one admirable motivation between them, I thought this threequel was a waste of time. Add on a whole Area 51 subplot that nearly put me to sleep, then you have a recipe for, surprisingly, the second best Sony Spider-Man Universe movie. How sad.
Thus far, the Sony Spider-Man Universe, or whatever you want to call it at this point, is one for five. People say the recently finished DCEU sucks compared to the MCU? Oh, boy oh boy, this universe WISHES it were the DCEU! That universe has cinematic bangers like “Wonder Woman” and “The Suicide Squad!” The DCEU even spawned the incredible TV series “Peacemaker!” While definitely inconsistent, when that cinematic universe fired on all cylinders, it was on the right track. But “Kraven the Hunter” had something attached to it that the other movies did not… An R rating! Yeah! That “Morbius” nonsense? That is for babies! Now it is daddy’s turn! If “Deadpool” can get away with an R, so can “Kraven!”
Having seen the movie, it may be able to get away with an R, but it certainly is not getting away from my infinite rage. This is yet another epic fail for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. Though am I really surprised?
Sony, how many times do we have to do this same old song and dance before it becomes stale? I think this is a great question.
…If I were an imbecile!
This whole Sony Spider-Man Barrel of Monkeys was already stale from the first of these wannabe “Spider-Man” flicks. I ask this question specifically to you guys. Genuinely! What on earth are you doing?! What is it going to take for this saga of nonsense to end?! I understand that the rights to “Spider-Man” are your most valuable asset, but if you keep making movies like these, then this whole property is going to be a joke. Tom Holland is not going to be playing the character forever. The “Spider-Verse” series can only go on for so long. You can only do so many crossovers involving the three live-action Spider-Men before they stop acting. The solution is not to continue making cheap, boring anti-hero movies featuring villains as the main character. Movies like “Kraven the Hunter” justify cases where movies like “Batgirl” get scrapped by the studio for a tax write-off.
Honestly, if someone popped me the question as to which movie I would want to watch more, and I had to pick between the first “Venom” and “Kraven the Hunter,” I might go with “Venom!” At least in “Venom,” you had some occasional funny lines and some decent chemistry between the two main characters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is clearly giving the lead role his all here. But he does not have a great script to back him up. While Aaron Taylor-Johnson is playing the lead role, he is not even the most high profile actor on the roster. The film also features Russell Crowe, and I think it is safe to say that I was not entertained by his completely one-dimensional so-called character. Crowe plays Kraven’s father, and not only is he unworthy of even a Dollar Tree card on Father’s Day, but he has incredibly repetitive, cliche dialogue. The movie clearly establishes him as far from the finest father figure. That seems to be the point at times. But I cared so little about the story and characters of this film to the point where Crowe’s character comes off as a joke.
Then you have Ariana DeBose, who is one of the most dynamic, lively, energetic talents working today. The woman in the past couple years deservedly won an Academy Award for “West Side Story.” She was also pretty good in other films following that, even if they did not get the best reviews. Unpopular opinion, I really liked “Wish…” I said what I said. DeBose, to my shock and amazement, plays one of the most forgettable core characters of a comic book film I have ever seen. If you were to ask me what the purpose of this character was in a few years from now, I will probably refer to her as the boring tarot card lady or something, because while her presence serves the story, it does so in maybe the dullest way possible. Shoutout to Sony for making two movies in the same year that somehow made me give me even less of a crap about tarot cards than I already do. Anybody remember the film “Tarot” from earlier this year? No? If you are loyal to this blog you will hear about it again soon on the top 10 worst movies of 2024 list once I get finished with that. You know, kind of like this atrocity some like to call a comic book movie.
Going back to what I said about “Madame Web” and how a big name cast could not save the film from being bad. I think “Kraven the Hunter” somehow takes that inferiority to another level. Because yes, Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney have been in big projects. Some good, some bad. That is the classic life of an actor, but they are both lucky enough to achieve their level of fame. Sweeney has been nominated for a couple Primetime Emmys so congrats to her. That said, “Kraven the Hunter” is much more excruciating to think about because while “Madame Web’s” Sweeney has gotten some awards attention, “Kraven” has multiple actors who have actually have prestigious awards on their mantle.
Again, you have Russell Crowe who has an extended career, an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, and two Golden Globes. Circling back to Ariana DeBose, it was like watching Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy in “Batman & Robin,” but worse. Because while Thurman was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in “Pulp Fiction,” a couple years before that flopbuster came out, DeBose actually WON her Academy Award. I do not think DeBose’s performance is Razzie-worthy. There is nothing extreme about it that makes it stand out as one of the worst performances of all time. The best word I can use to describe it would be “tiring.” I guess that is one reason to watch this movie again. If I am really tired and want to catch some z’s, “Kraven the Hunter” might make for solid background noise.
I will be fair to Crowe, however. As infuriating as his character is to watch, I must admit he makes the most of a crappy script with his chops. Crowe does his best with the material to the point where I almost cannot imagine anyone else in his role. So… Yay?…
Another actor I enjoyed watching in this hot mess? Aaron Taylor-Johnson. No, it is not because of his abs. He legit does an okay job as the lead. Again, his character is not written well. But I buy him in the role. He is not perfect, but he definitely has an inkling of charisma. I just wish such charisma were saved for something that would not be a waste of my time and money. That is another consistency with these Sony movies. As much as I do not like “Venom,” I still think Tom Hardy is well cast as the lead role. Same goes for Jared Leto in “Morbius.”
For those of you who saw the first eight minutes of the movie when it dropped online, you would know it starts off with, admittedly, a halfway decent action sequence. That adjective might as well be used to describe a good amount of the action in this film. The action does not reinvent the wheel. There are a couple cuts that I thought were a little too quick, but for the most part, the action is one of the better parts of the movie. “Kraven the Hunter” sometimes finds its footing in some places, but when it comes to structure, that is definitely not one of those places. Sure, the movie starts off with a decent action scene that could likely hook viewers into the story. But then we get to the part of the film that dives into Kraven’s origins. The timing of this transition feels abrupt and out of place. Given the length of these moments and how long it deviates from what we already saw in Kraven’s adulthood, I would have preferred for the final cut of the film to start with Kraven’s origins. It would allow me to more easily know and understand the characters that way if we were to get to an action sequence like the one we see at the beginning, I would probably care a little more about the people in the scene and possibly the sequence itself.
I will give props to Sony for not hiring Mark Sazama and Burk Sharpless to write this film. Although to be fair, they were probably already busy figuring out how to beat the odds and make a worse screenplay for “Madame Web” than they did for “Morbius.” Spoiler alert, they did. Instead, this film has three writers. You have Richard Wenk, known for writing the “Equalizer” movies starring Denzel Washington. I have not watched those films, but I have heard good things. His resume contains some other notable work, but oddly enough, I cannot give my opinion on any of his titles because I never watched any of them. As for the other two writers, you have Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. These are two of the four writers responsible for one of the better Marvel Cinematic Universe films, “Iron Man.” Although the rest of their resume is not particularly great. There is “Men in Black: International,” which I actually liked. But there are also a lot of people who would challenge my unpopular opinion. They just did “Uncharted,” which has a couple cool action scenes, but the screenplay has nothing that stands out about it. The film itself is rather unmemorable. Then we travel back in time to my least favorite movie of theirs, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” My biggest problem with the film is with the headache-inducing use of IMAX technology that honestly leaves no one but Michael Bay to blame. But if I had another notable problem, it is that the film’s script repeats the problems of the previous movies, but somehow delivers maybe the least engaging journey the franchise has given yet. Going back even further to a movie I did not see, these two even did “Punisher: War Zone,” which was not only poorly reviewed, but with more than $10 million total, it made less money at the box office than any other movie based on Marvel Comics. Part of me is convinced that Sony could be having a streak of bad luck, but then I look at the resumes of the people they hire and I think either their options are limited, they are choosing the wrong people, or they have better options out there and do not want to spend more money on them. I have no clue.
In all seriousness though, this trio of writers managed to join forces to create one of the most snore-inducing films of the year. I do not think there is any way to sugarcoat this. It is also full of Academy Award-level lines like “I’m a hunter.” In addition to Russell Crowe repeatedly telling his boys, and therefore the audience, that their mother died and she was weak. As I watched this movie and came to realize the director and cast handled their material, I honestly thought “Kraven the Hunter” has a feel that is kind of similar to “The Room.” I say kind of because unlike “The Room,” the chances of me ever watching “Kraven the Hunter” again are pretty slim. But this is a movie that I can honestly watch, acknowledge how bad it is, and sometimes burst out laughing for the wrong reasons. If you want a more genre-related example, I will go back to the recently mentioned “Batman & Robin.” It definitely makes me laugh, but the humor sometimes feels accidental.
You know the Island of Misfit Toys from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?” If there were ever a place I could associate with this universe, that would be it. I assume most inhabitants, or in this case, filmmakers, actors, producers, crew, etc., that make it up are kind, but compared to the toys Santa delivers to kids on Christmas, which in this case would be Disney’s MCU and Warner Brothers’ DCEU, Sony’s got its own little private island full of outcasts. I have not gone back to watch a single Sony Spider-Man Enigmaverse movie since seeing them in the theater, other than “Venom: Let There be Carnage” when it was airing one time on cable. It is like that scene from “Toy Story 2” where Andy picks up Woody and says he does not want to play with him anymore, except in this case, the toy is fresh out of the box and has barely been used.
This is why I ask Sony not to sell the rights to “Spider-Man…” I really want to see them pump out that third “Spider-Verse” movie. Instead I would like Sony to stop with these standalone villain spinoffs. These are not movies, these are corporate products designed by people trying to fill a release slot and keep the rights just a while longer. “Kraven the Hunter” is the latest example of this. If you are looking for Spider-Man connections in this film, all you are getting are secondary characters who appear in various Spider-Man properties who are poorly executed, and one scene where a ton of spiders are on screen. It is not even a good scene! Spider-Man is not in this movie. Peter Parker is not in this movie. Although the Rhino is in this movie. This time around is better than how the character was presented in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but that does not really say much.
Speaking of which, let’s talk about the CGI… This movie is chock-full of distractingly noticeable visuals. Going back to Rhino, that is one example. You can definitely tell he has fake skin, but I would not even consider that the worst CGI in this film. This film has multiple scenes containing animals, including a lion I thought looked somewhat artificial, but at most I would consider to be tolerable. The animals that stood out to me the most in terms of how offputting they looked are the buffalo. And there are a lot of them in this movie. There is this scene where this buffalo is holding steady in front of Kraven. They are in the middle of a field. When that buffalo is staying still, all that allows me to do is take in as much detail as possible to realize that the creature looks like something out of a video game. When Kraven is looking at this buffalo, he comes off like he is staring at a picture instead of something live.
Sony, please. Just stop! I have had it up to here at this point! This year is the 100th anniversary of Columbia Pictures. When it comes to celebrating it, this, “Venom: The Last Dance,” and “Madame Web” were clearly not the best ways to do it on the Marvel front. I am thankful they brought all the old “Spider-Man” movies back to theaters. I went back to watch “Spider-Man 2” and “Spider-Man 3” in the theater this year. If for whatever reason Sony decides to do some anniversary screening for “Kraven the Hunter,” I am going to give it a hard pass.
In the end, “Kraven the Hunter” sucks. Plain and simple. It is a poorly structured, badly edited, laughably acted, shoddily directed misfire that I would not recommend to anyone. I will honestly watch “Venom: The Last Dance” three more times before turning this movie on again. Yes, there are positives. The action is okay. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a good choice to play Kraven. And even though Russell Crowe plays an unlikable character, he at least acts like he is giving two squirts of urine about his role. “Kraven the Hunter” is not a movie. It is a series of scenes spliced together by a corporation to continue preserving franchise rights. If this is the last movie we see in the Sony Spider-Man Insert Clever Name Here, good riddance. I am going to give “Kraven the Hunter” a 2/10.
“Kraven the Hunter” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” and “Flow.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Kraven the Hunter?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your 2024 comic book movies ranked? What a terrible question that must be… That is like ranking your children, and you are choosing your favorite child based on which one you find the least irritating. I will admit, I did not even see “The Crow” this year. I think I dodged a bullet with that one. That said, there were plenty of awful comic book films this year to make up for whatever that one would end up being. If you have a ranking, list your top movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Nightbitch” is directed by Marielle Heller (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) and stars Amy Adams (Enchanted, Arrival), Scott McNairy (Speak No Evil, Monsters), Arleigh Snowden, Emmett Snowden, Zoë Chao (Strangers, The Afterparty), Mary Holland (Happiest Season, The Big Door Prize), and Ella Thomas (Surrogates, Nina). This film is based on a book of the same name and is about a stay at home mother who occasionally transforms into a dog at night.
Amy Adams is a fine actress with a ton of range. Doing everything from family flicks like “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,” to crime films like “American Hustle,” to comic book movies like “Man of Steel,” to modern sci-fi classics like “Arrival.” Now she is taking on her latest role, a woman who occasionally turns into a dog.
Judging by the film’s epically awesome title, it is easy to assume “Nightbitch” will not have the family friendliness of say “The Shaggy Dog,” which sees its main character also transforming into a canine from time to time. Whether you like the various editions of “The Shaggy Dog” or not, I think most people who know about it can admit that the concept is at the very least, clever. That is also a word I would use to describe the hook of “Nightbitch.”
This brings me to my first gripe regarding the film. The whole concept of the main character turning into a dog feels rather wasted, especially considering how much I heard about that hook going into the film. Having seen the film, I understand that seeing the main character turning into a dog is not necessarily what it is about. There is more to it. But I think if you are going to dive into that concept, you might try to expand it just a little. For the most part, “Nightbitch” is about a woman’s journey and struggles that come with being a mother. I am fine with that. I will also say the concept is handled well. But if you have this idea of occasional dog transformations, maybe do a little more than one or two scenes featuring a canine version of Adams and having her occasionally interact with other dogs every once in a while.
The film, in more ways than one, effectively turns Amy Adams into a dog in a figurative sense. This is especially noticeable when her character is interacting with her child. Though when it comes to the advertised literal sense of Adams becoming a dog, that is where the film disappoints. In fact, having seen this film now, part of me is curious about what it would have been like to go into this movie blind. Maybe I set my expectations too high. Maybe I would have been caught off guard by certain scenes in the film.
I will compliment the film for its point of view on parenting, particularly motherhood. This is far from a happy go lucky take on the concept. Amy Adams does a good job encapsulating the stress her character goes through from scene to scene. If I have one thing to say though, this film is based on a 2021 novel, and for all I know, the novel is great. But “Nightbitch” definitely feels more like literature at times than it does cinema. For one thing, we spend much of the movie hearing Amy Adams’ character, simply named “Mother,” talking inside of her head. There is not a rule saying you cannot have characters talk inside their head. Heck, there is a movie from earlier this year called “Boy Kills World” where the voice inside the main character’s head is probably my favorite part. That said, like any other movie, “Nightbitch” is presented in a medium that is traditionally more show than tell. This movie tends to spend a significant amount of time taking the tell approach. Sometimes it works, other times it does not really add anything to the scene. It kind of spells out certain things that I may have already come to realize. In addition to Adams’ narration, the film also contains fourth wall breaks. That said, this is a dark comedy, so I will at least point out that the narration thankfully provides for some laughs.
I think “Nightbitch” will definitely have an audience. I do not know how much staying power this film will have going forward. For all I know, it could do well when it comes to streaming. Though I think mothers in particular will find this film relatable. Even if they love their children or their partner, I think they will pick up something from “Nightbitch” that they can attach to a certain peeve in their lives. This film is not only a solid dive into motherhood and the struggles it can bring, but what such a common concept could take away. It could interfere with career paths, dreams, ambitions, all to continue the human race.
I imagine dads could find the film relatable themselves. There are several moments of the film that I imagine a father, no matter the age of their kid, has experienced. Either when they try to be useful, or when they want some private time with their partner. That said, “Nightbitch” is presented from a mother’s perspective, therefore it will relate to mothers the most. There is even a line out of Adams’ character that I will not cite verbatim, but she is talking to her husband and she mentions she is busy trying to take care of him, in addition to their child. Also keep in mind, I am single and do not have children. So while many opinions are valid when it comes to art, including ones presented in this review, my thoughts on the film could change should I get married or have kids sometime down the road.
The pacing of this film is brisk, although at times a little overly spontaneous. Though I do admire the film’s efforts for packing in as much as it does in such a short runtime. While there are one or two events that definitely almost come in almost out of the blue, the film for the most part maintains a steady, but speedy path from start to finish. Never once was I uninterested or bored. I have to give credit to Marielle Heller and Rachel Yoder for crafting a consistent script. While I would have been more delighted had said script unleashed more of the dog-related hook, it makes for a fine hour and a half at the cinema. Best movie of the year? Far from it. But is it decent? Sure.
In the end, “Nightbitch” is a fairly… PAW-sitive moviegoing experience. The star of the show, figuratively and literally, is Amy Adams, who overdelivers as “Mother.” Yes, she has a ton of narration. Sometimes it is hit or miss, but Adams goes all the way with it. It is not my favorite performance from Adams, but she clearly owns the role. I also think it was a smart choice to have Marielle Heller direct the film. I can say as a man, I do not think I would have done as effective of a job with a story like this. She is also a parent, so that helps too. This film, even if it is based on something else, definitely has a personal touch. It is noticeable in the dialogue and the performances. I would not recommend the film to all audiences, but I am certain it will find an audience regardless. I am going to give “Nightbitch” a 6/10.
I would also like to shout out this film’s director, Marielle Heller, whose directorial outing prior to this film was “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” a film partially centering around Fred Rogers. I must say “Nightbitch” is quite a transition from Heller’s previous film… A wholesome, comforting, feel good drama, to a vulgar, honest, dark comedy. While Heller is not my favorite director working today, I am definitely looking forward to seeing what she does next because like I said about Adams at the start of this review, Heller definitely has range.
“Nightbitch” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Hulu Friday, December 27th.
Thanks for reading this review! Do you have comic book movie fatigue? I don’t! But I just saw “Kraven the Hunter” and I am most certainly having “Sony Spider-Man Schlockiverse” fatigue as we speak. Look forward to that review as long as I do not smash my computer in rage while making it. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” and “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Nightbitch?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Amy Adams movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Smile 2” is directed by Parker Finn, who also directed the first “Smile,” starring Sosie Bacon. This sequel stars Naomi Scott (Power Rangers, Aladdin) as a singer by the name Skye Riley. Joining Scott is a cast including Rosemarie DeWitt (La La Land, Poltergeist), Lukas Gage (Love, Victor, You), Miles Gutierrez-Riley (Agatha All Along, The Wilds), Peter Jacobson (House, Colony), Ray Nicholson (Out of the Blue, Panic), Dylan Gelula (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Dream Scenario), Raúl Castillo (Cold Weather, Looking), and Kyle Gallner (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Jennifer’s Body). This film is about a global pop star who experiences strange events while she promotes her tour.
If you have followed Scene Before for the past couple years, you would know that I have been thrilled with the horror genre lately, particularly in 2022. In that year you had one solid horror film after another. “The Black Phone,” “Barbarian,” “X,” “Pearl,” “Nope,” and of course, “Smile.” The last of these films is the feature-length debut from Parker Finn, and it was, deservedly, a huge success at the box office for Paramount. “Smile” even made my top 10 of the year. So naturally I HAD to be excited for the sequel right?
Ehh…
I love “Smile,” but it was a film I thought would be better off as a one and done. Do not get me wrong, I love the concept of “Smile,” and I was at least slightly intrigued to see another take on it. I did not see this sequel coming. Thankfully, Parker Finn is back, and he clearly knew what he was doing the first time around. He created a film that made me feel uneasy, terrified, and riveted. But if you are going to get someone to expand this universe, it might as well be an individual who knows it well. Though name recognition is not good enough. I hope Finn had a solid idea up his sleeve and was not just coming back to slap something together for a quick buck.
Thankfully, I am proud to say that this sequel lives up to the original. There are parts of this movie that I would even say are an improvement from the original. While I was more intrigued by the story of the first film, maybe due to the concept feeling fresh, I found the lead for “Smile 2” to leap off the screen more. Both in terms of her character, and her performance.
“Smile 2” is led by Naomi Scott, who I have not seen in a ton of projects. I know she is particularly famous for her appearance in the 2019 Disney “Aladdin” remake. I have not seen that film. Although I do like her based on what I saw her in leading up to this picture. I thought Scott was a good actress before seeing “Smile 2,” but I had no idea what exactly she was capable of until watching this film. Scott is given a lot to do between channeling a neverending sense of fear, singing, trying to convince others she is not going berserk. I bought into her entire performance. I will also give some credit to the costuming and makeup departments. Scott plays a pop star, and those two departments do a great job at transforming Scott into an artist admired by a sea of fans.
I have not seen the first “Smile” since the theater. I want to watch it again at some point. It could be fun to do a double feature of these films back to back. But kind of like the first film, once it gets to the ending, that is where “Smile 2” becomes as unhinged as it possibly can. This film might not exactly contain my favorite ending of the year. But I could not imagine a more fitting outcome of the story if I tried. Going back to the original “Smile,” I cannot say I remember everything that happens in that film’s climax. Though I will not deny that whatever did happen, made my skin crawl like you would not believe. It is not to say that the rest of the film was not scary. But I specifically remember the feeling I had watching parts of the climax. I felt an equally noticeable sense of discomfort watching the entirety of “Smile 2.” I was scared not just because of what loomed over our protagonist from a supernatural perspective, but also from a pure sanity standpoint. This film to a certain degree repeats concepts from the original in addition to other horror movies, but even these familiar elements feel as if they are done to their maximum potential.
Also with “Smile 2” being a sequel, it follows a cliche that many sequels tend to carry with them, that is to go bigger than its predecessor. I sometimes cite this as a negative in my reviews because while the scope expands, the quality of the story does not. Therefore, bigger does not always mean better. But I felt that the added scope of this film made for a more immersive and better production than the original. The film cost $28 million to make, up from its predecessor’s $17 million. Both budgets are not necessarily high, but the crew behind “Smile 2” clearly threw more money at the screen to give something more visually appealing than what was given in the first “Smile.” The sets feel more grand. The color palette is glossier. Even the look of our main character played by Naomi Scott has more pizzazz. Granted, she is a pop star, so she would require more elaborate outfits and makeup than the original’s lead, Sosie Bacon, who played a therapist.
Though if I have one negative-ish thing to say about the film, it is that it often comes off as a commercial. It is not shot like a commercial. It very much has the look and feel of a movie. But we get numerous glimpses of Paramount Global’s assets in order to further the story including a CBS news network and “The Drew Barrymore Show.” Have you ever watched a Sony movie and noticed them trying to promote their phones? TVs? Headsets? PlayStations? That is kind of what this feels like. In fact, some would even say that this shameless self-promotion is not even the biggest piece of commercialism in the film. It stood out to me, probably because I have a good amount of experience with mass media. But some would even say that Voss Water plays an even bigger role in “Smile 2” in terms of product placement. This did not bother me in particular. If anything, I thought anytime our main protagonist drank water in the movie, those moments properly encapsulated what she was feeling in specific scenes. Did this movie make me want Voss Water? Not really. So as for the effectiveness of this commercial, maybe it will work better for other people. I sound like a Negative Nancy, but if you want me to be real, the product placement here, while noticeable, is not as obnoxious as “Madame Web.”
“Smile 2” has something in common with another sequel from this year, “Inside Out 2.” These are movies that I thought had phenomenal first outings, but I was rather nervous when I found out they were getting sequels. I did not think a follow-up would be as good or worthwhile. I did not find a sequel to be all that necessary compared to other properties out there. But both sequels surprised me and stuck the landing. I think “Smile 2” is more consistent in quality with its predecessor whereas “Inside Out 2” is a noticeable step down, but still a pretty good flick. Another thing these movies have in common… I would not mind seeing a third one. I would especially be happy if Parker Finn comes back to do a threequel, though if someone else has a fresh idea up their sleeve, I would not be opposed to checking it out. But this second film is worth watching. It is not my favorite horror movie of the year. I think “A Quiet Place: Day One” is slightly better when it comes to characterization and overall engagement. But this is a huge win for the franchise, for Parker Finn, and for Paramount. I would love to see more of this property if possible.
In the end, it is safe to say, if you like the first “Smile” movie, chances are you will enjoy the second one. If you are not a fan of the first “Smile” movie, then maybe skip this sequel. I am going back and forth as to which movie I like more. I have to give the first film a lot of credit because it took a clever, crazy idea and turned it into an equally clever, crazy movie. Though I think this second film ups the scares, ups the insanity, ups the acting, and ups the production value. That said, I do think the first film’s story is slightly more engaging, as much as I like the main character and concept of this film as well. Despite how often this movie made me wince, I am definitely all smiles talking about it now. I am going to give “Smile 2” an 8/10.
“Smile 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD. As of this writing the film is available to all Paramount+ and MGM+ subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Smile 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Smile” movies puts a bigger grin on your face? The original? Or the sequel? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
WARNING: Review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view.
“Wicked” is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) and stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Fellow Travelers, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater, Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Marissa Bode, Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones, Pixels), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Thor: Ragnarok). This film is based on a book that inspired a popular Broadway musical and centers around the connection between two students at Shiz University… A misunderstood green woman named Elphaba and a popular girl named Galinda.
“Wicked” is a property that I have heard by name for years. Obviously, I am familiar with some Oz stories, so I know that “Wicked” is connected to that universe. I have seen commercials on television promoting the play when it arrives in my local area. My earliest memory regarding the play has to do with one episode of “Deal or No Deal” I watched when I was 10 years old, when the contestant received an offer from the banker revolving around the play. But I cannot say I have seen the play, nor have I listened to the soundtrack. I have heard decent things about it, I know it is popular, I know people enjoy it. But I have never bothered to check it out. Safe to say, there is a first time for everything.
Perhaps the biggest movie phenomenon in terms of marketing in 2024 so far would have to be “Deadpool & Wolverine.” That film has pushed itself rather hard, gotten so many people looking forward to it, and gotten rather creative with its advertising leading up to its release. Though I say that with a supposed bias because I am definitely the target audience of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” “Wicked” on the other hand, not really. Like any genre, I can appreciate a great musical, but I would not say musicals are my first choice. Nevertheless, I am seeing more than enough promotion for “Wicked,” and I do not think I am alone in this. Though I will admit, like “Deadpool & Wolverine,” there are creative approaches I like regarding “Wicked’s” push. At AMC Theatres, where I usually flock to if I am seeing a movie, they made a reminder for audiences watching whatever film they paid for to follow the traditional rules of moviegoing. As this happens, Jeff Goldblum, who plays the Wizard in the film, says each rule, after which a completely fitting clip of “Wicked” plays.
In fact, this PSA played before my “Wicked” screening as well, which I saw at a Dolby Cinema auditorium at AMC. The video also comes with the rule, “NO SINGING,” which thankfully, my audience followed. Shoutout to my fellow moviegoers for maintaining a respectful atmosphere. But I could tell that I was part of a passionate crowd. There were some enthusiastic responses to certain parts of the film when they came up, I even remember seeing someone below me wearing a witch’s hat. I love when people embrace their inner fan. This is why I often go to conventions because I love those kinds of atmospheres.
Sadly, while “Wicked” clearly has fans, I cannot say I am one of them. I was not one before watching this movie, and I cannot say it turned me into one. This is genuinely one of the most middle of the road movies of the year. One can even argue it is disappointing. Because even as someone who was not the target audience, I could clearly see craftsmanship, love, and effort put into the picture. But there are also some things that have turned me off.
Once again, I am not the target audience for musicals, though I have enjoyed some. In recent years, I have raved about Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” remake time and time again. That said, the songs in this movie, while there are highlights, for the most part, did not really do anything for me. There are some tolerable pieces like “No One Mourns the Wicked,” “Popular,” and of course, “Defying Gravity.” But for the most part, the movie failed to impress me. I thought from the concept, the marketing, and the fantastical universe in which this movie was going to be set, we would get an incredibly vibrant film, but that is not the case.
When it comes to the color palette, that is a spot where “Wicked” falters. The color grading in this film feels pale and wooden for a place that is clearly supposed to be otherworldly. If anything, it kind of looks like a rushed Marvel movie. Do not get me wrong, I love my Marvel movies. But there are a couple titles I where I think the color grading should have been cleaned up a little bit. It looks kind of empty. That said, the film’s look is not all bad. The production design feels grand and epic at times. Oz looks great. The interiors look great. There’s a shot early on showing a massive field of flowers that captivated me. That also leads me to say that I like the film’s camerawork. The framing feels wide and vast, trying to fit as much information as possible from one side of the screen to the other. This film is shot by Alex Brooks, who is no stranger to shooting musicals. In 2021, she shot “Tick, Tick…BOOM!,” which I adored. Months before that movie came out, she was credited for the less enjoyable but still fun “In the Heights,” also directed by Jon M. Chu. Brooks has a good eye for framing and definitely knows how to make shots feel grand, even if there are other aspects that drag such grandeur down.
Although if I had to name my favorite aspects of the film, there are two that come to mind… The leads. The entire film revolves around the relationship between Elphaba and Galinda. Thankfully, this movie casts both of these parts perfectly. For Elphaba, you have Cynthia Erivo, who not only plays her part well, capturing the uniqueness of her character that goes far beyond her looks, but boy can she sing. There is a lot of singing in this film, and admittedly, some of the singing in this film, particularly from multiple characters, sometimes feels out of place. Though it is not “Joker: Folie à Deux” bad. Some of it just feels tacked on if anything. I imagine some would say all of the singing in the film has a point. From my point of view, maybe it fits better on Broadway. I do not know. There are a lot of scenes within the context of a musical that I happened to buy. But there are other songs that either feel slapped together almost unnecessarily, or just plain annoying. But thankfully, Erivo sings all of her songs well, and the same can be said for Ariana Grande, who practically steals every scene she is in. She plays the popular girl type to a tee. She is fantastic. Dare I even say Oscar-worthy. I hope she gets a nomination. Whether it will be for Best Lead Actress or Supporting Actress we will have to see. I know Universal probably does not want Erivo and Grande competing against each other for the same award. The Golden Globe nominees just came out and both performers are in different categories. Even so, Grande is a knockout. There is an otherworldliness to her character that I bought into. She is funny, charming, and perhaps gives one of the best physical performances of the year. There are plenty of other actors in this film that play their individual parts well. I thought Jeff Goldblum was a great choice to play Oz. Michelle Yeoh is commanding as Madame Morrible, and Jonathan Bailey does a good job playing Fiyero Tigelaar.
As said earlier this review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view… This where is where we get into those potential spoilers. You have been warned.
Kind of like “Dune,” there is one thing “Wicked” hides in its marketing that I would have never gathered from trailers and ads alone. I knew about this before going into the film, because other people dropped the news beforehand. But for those who do not know, “Wicked” is a part one. Early on in the film, the title card of this movie shows up, we see “WICKED” in huge letters, and shortly after, the words “PART 1” shows up. And BOY does this movie feel like a first half of a two part story. You can say the same for “Dune,” a movie that for the record, I happen to fall within the target audience… My point is, I feel like “Dune” does a good job at not only getting me invested in a universe that aesthetically leaps off the screen ten times better than this one does. But I care more about the journey our lead character goes on. In fact, we see him during the start of the film in a certain way, and he fully develops as a character, giving a solid end to his arc in the story. There are questions regarding the character that are left unanswered, but I am intrigued enough to find out how things would unfold in a future chapter. Elphaba develops somewhat in this film, but her development feels slightly incomplete. “Dune,” despite being a book split in half, comes off as a full story. At least to me it does. I would not be surprised if some people disagree. It leaves the audience with questions. But as far as Paul Atreides is concerned, I think the movie gives him a solid progression. It left me knowing enough about the world of Arrakis. It left me knowing enough about Atreides. It left me wanting more. I left “Wicked” feeling as if I was watching an unfinished story that barely kept me awake. I remember last year when “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” came out. Like “Dune,” I happen to be in the target audience for that film too. I loved the movie, and I could tell that like “Wicked,” it was made with love. But also like “Wicked,” if I had a complaint about the film, it definitely feels like a setup movie at times. It is a great setup movie. But there is a reason despite me giving the film a 10/10 for its many positives during my review, I ended up sliding it down a spot on my Top 10 BEST Movies of 2023 list, where “Godzilla Minus One” just so happened to be my number one pick for the year.
Sticking with “Across the Spider-Verse,” I enjoyed all the characters, the animation, the production value, everything that particular movie had to offer. They do way more than enough to make the part one worthwhile. As for “Wicked,” there are decent characters but they are in an off and on story. The world is not as interesting as I hoped it would be. A few songs are okay, but I cannot say I am raving about them. In fact, some of the song sequences gave me a headache. Part of it may do with me seeing the movie in Dolby, but still. If I were to watch the movie a second time either at home or in a regular theater, hopefully that does not happen again. The pacing of this movie is as slow as snail. The movie is two hours and forty minutes long. It honestly almost feels like three or even longer. I found myself rather invested in the second half at times, but the first half? I found myself wanting to fall asleep. But I could not do that, because I was in a Dolby Cinema, and the songs were so loud they were giving me a headache!
As the film was ending, I will be real, despite my many negatives, I was rather riveted by Erivo’s take on Defying Gravity. This is not a song I would listen to on my own time, but within the context of the story, she puts on a good show. There is also, again, really good camerawork in this sequence. There are a couple shots that are so immersive you feel like Erivo is singing right in your face. For many people, I would imagine this would be the reason why the movie is worth seeing. Unfortunately for me, I was immensely tired after the first half to the point where the movie barely redeemed itself by the conclusion. This was a good sequence. I just wish it were in a movie that had more of my attention.
In the end, I left “Wicked” rather unfulfilled. I will remind everyone, this is a part one. Unfortunately, this film failed on an important objective, which is getting me excited for part two. I am probably going to see it, because I know a lot of people will be talking about it. But if I were not reviewing movies, chances are I might skip it unless someone I know invited me to see it as their plus one. Again, I am not the target audience for this movie. It was likely made for someone who was not me. But the same can be said about other movies I reviewed like “Barbie,” “On the Basis of Sex,” and “Hope Gap.” I liked all of those movies! I cannot say the same about this one. If you like “Wicked,” good for you. I am glad you had fun. But I found the soundtrack to be mediocre, the overall look of the film to be slightly unappealing, and the world to lack my overall investment. I have to give credit to certain groups in this movie. A lot of the actors do a good job. The costumes are really nice. The sets definitely have effort put into them. This movie comes with plenty of good, but I nevertheless found an equal amount of bad. You could even say there are things that make “Wicked” watchable, but it is done in a package that failed to win me over. I like Jon M. Chu as a director, and when it comes to unleashing good performances out of his cast, that is where he excels here. But when it comes to creating an enjoyable musical atmosphere, I think he does better job with that with “In the Heights.” I do not love “In the Heights,” but I think it is a slightly better film than “Wicked.” If someone were in the room with me and they put it in on, I would not leave. I would watch it again. As is the case “Killers of the Flower Moon” last year and “Elvis” the year before that, “Wicked” is probably going to be a huge awards contender. But like those two other films, I am definitely in the minority with my negative opinion when it comes to “Wicked.” I mean, I liked the movie more than “Challengers…” Go ahead, punch me in the face. I do not care. I said what I said. All I can do is give my honest opinion. I am going to give “Wicked” a 5/10.
One last thing I want to bring up… I do not know if this was a studio choice or a directorial intention or if this was just my screening, but I want to know if anyone else experienced this. When I saw this film for the first time, I noticed that there was a tint attached in my presentation that was pink and green. It stayed that way during the entire film. You might think I am just seeing things because those are the two consistent colors throughout the picture. Although I must point out that this tint was also present during the trailers. When the MPA warning flashed, I noticed hints of pink in the font. I am not sure what the purpose of that was, but it was kind of distracting. Did anyone else see that too or was it just me?
“Wicked” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! By the way, a lot of people appear to be seeing “Wicked” as part of a double feature with another film, “Gladiator II.” Be sure to check out my review for that movie as well! Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your most unpopular movie opinion regarding this year in cinema? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Juror #2” is directed by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino) and stars Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, The Garfield Movie), Toni Collette (Hereditary, The Way Way Back), J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Saturday Night), Chris Messina (I.S.S., The Mindy Project), Zoey Deutch (The Suite Life on Deck, The Politician), Cedric Yarborough (Speechless, The Goldbergs), and Kiefer Sutherland (Flatliners, Designated Survivor). This film is about a family man who struggles with a moral dilemma while serving as a juror on a high-profile murder trial.
As a hardcore moviegoer, I am always intrigued when I know I have the opportunity to take part in a unique experience. Over the past number of years, I have seen various Christopher Nolan movies in IMAX 70mm. I went to a free screening of the 2020 film “Emma.” at a theater just outside of Boston because the film’s star and director, Anya Taylor-Joy and Autumn de Wilde, were there as part of their press tour. During a vacation in Los Angeles, I ended up watching “Turning Red” at the El Capitan Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard just days into its 2022 release. With the film dropping on Disney+ at the same time, the El Capitan was one of the few ways I could actually see the film in a cinema. The film was playing in select locations in California and New York, and I was lucky enough to be close to one of them.
Similar to that last example, “Juror #2” continuously played in a limited number of theaters since its early November release. I was lucky enough to catch a screening at one of these theaters on the fourth week of its run. I say this not just because of the limited availability, but because the film is so good that it makes me wish more theaters were playing it.
Unfortunately, after just a little more than a month, it looks like the movie’s theatrical run has come to an end. Even in markets like New York and Los Angeles, there are no showtimes to be found. The film is however available for home viewing, and while it is not guaranteed you will get the definitive experience, you certainly will get a great film. This is one of the most engaging movies I have watched all year. It is not short on edge of your seat moments and stellar characterization. The film is helmed by Clint Eastwood, and it amazes me to know that he is 94 years old and still making movies as excellent as this.
Nicholas Hoult plays the film’s lead, Justin Kemp, and he kills it. I do not think Hoult is going to win an Oscar this season, but if he does, or at least gets nominated, I think he has the film’s scribe, Jonathan Abrams, to thank to a certain degree for giving him such delicious material to work with. Hoult is given quite a bit to do in this film, and he handles all of it very well. He plays a complicated character who loses not even a single ounce of admirability as he goes on.
This film puts Justin Kemp, in a place where you can easily see his internal struggle. He runs into a scenario that I could imagine most people with a sense of decency would never want to face. The film presents his journey in such a way that makes me like his character the entire time, even though I know he kind of has a dark side. I do not mean this in a bad boy or admirable jerk or lovable idiot kind of sense. Kemp is genuinely a good guy who must deal with the consequences that are given to him. He is not perfect, but the movie gives you enough background to like him despite his flaws.
Hoult easily outshines everyone in the supporting cast, who are by no means doing a bad job, but Hoult is in a league of his own. That said I think Amy Aquino is likable as Judge Thelma Hollub. She plays the part well. The same can be said for Toni Collette, Chris Messina, and Kiefer Sutherland (above) as Faith Killebrew, Eric Resnick, and Larry Lasker respectively. Some of the supporting jurors get their moment to shine when it is relevant to the story. A few of those moments stood out. I also enjoyed seeing one juror who was written in such a way where the movie presents her to be brainwashed by cliches of the true crime genre. That said if I had one complaint, and it is a minor gripe if anything, this film for the most part feels grounded, that character is almost a cartoon in certain moments. I do not dislike her, but tonally, she almost feels like she is in a different project.
While Hoult’s chances this awards season are still up for debate, I have to say “Juror #2” has some of the cleanest editing I have seen in a film all year. The film is essentially linear, though it also contains perfectly placed flashbacks and each moment is timed perfectly to generate a proper reaction. There are quite a few moments where this movie had my eyes glued to the screen and a lot of it has to do with how long it took me to process each moment.
The film also ends on a perfect note. I will not spoil it because as far as I am concerned, Warner Brothers for some reason wants no one on earth to see this film. But as if the final 10, 20 minutes are already engaging enough, the film throws in an appropriate final note. One could argue that this final note is predictable. I would not judge you for saying that, but I would say it is fitting, so I would not use the “predictable” complaint here. I would rather have a predictable ending that makes sense as opposed to an out of left field ending that has no place in the narrative whatsoever. To me, this final note is done in such a way where I like it more for its overall execution as opposed to the fact that someone thought to insert it in the film to begin with. I think such a sentiment can fit for the rest of the film. The film itself is not entirely predictable. It has parts that you can tell a certain thing is probably going to happen, but every action in this film is done in what can almost be described as the finest way possible.
With Clint Eastwood being 94 years old, there is a possibility that “Juror #2” could be his last film. If that is the case, I would like to say that this is a much better way to cap things off than the middle of the road 2021 film “Cry Macho.” But also, I hope that by some miracle, “Juror #2” comes back to theaters so more people can see it on the big screen. This is a film that if it were released in a wider capacity, probably would have generated more discussion about the legal system, moral dilemmas, and been a water-cooler conversation piece. I wish the movie to have some success at home, but like a lot of movies that go to theaters, I wish it had more time and accessibility. Sure, it is probably going to rack up solid word of mouth. But I wish it had a bigger release that way people watching it at home are more likely to have faith that it is going to be worth their time. And for the case of “Juror #2,” it is definitely worth your time.
In the end, there are a number of reasons to watch “Juror #2.” It is a spectacularly written, well-paced, thought provoking thriller. Nicholas Hoult, again, probably is not going to win that many awards this season, but I would not be mad if he gets one or two nominations because he plays one of the most complicated characters I have seen in any film this year. The film’s supporting cost from Toni Collette to Chris Messina to even J.K. Simmons all play their roles nicely. If this is Clint Eastwood’s swan song, it is a great note to end on. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The quality of this project only makes me curious to know if he has another one just as good up his sleeve. I am going to give “Juror #2” an 8/10.
In fact, going back to “Cry Macho,” “Juror #2” has now made more money at the box office in a handful of theaters than “Cry Macho” did during its entire run. For the record, “Cry Macho” made $16.5 million whereas “Juror #2” has racked up $19.9 million. Both failed to make their budget back, but I honestly would have liked to know what the case would have been if “Juror #2” were playing more in rural areas and the suburbs. Granted, there are external factors affecting “Cry Macho’s” release including a simultaneous drop on HBO Max and continued questioning over safety when it comes to COVID-19. But even so, for this film to make as much money as it did given the circumstances is not bad. I just wish there were more ways to see it.
“Juror #2” is now available on VOD and is available on Max for all subscribers on December 20th.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for one of the most popular movies out right now, “Wicked.” I had a chance to see it opening weekend, so I will let you know my thoughts on the phenomenon. Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Juror #2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Clint Eastwood film? There are plenty to choose from, so let me know which one you think is best down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Y2K” is directed by Kyle Mooney and this is his directorial debut. The film stars Jaeden Martell (St. Vincent, It), Rachel Zegler (West Side Story, Shazam! Fury of the Gods), Julian Dennison (Deadpool 2, Godzilla vs. Kong), Lachlan Watson (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Chucky), Mason Gooding (Love, Victor, Scream), Fred Durst (The Education of Charlie Banks, The Fanatic), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film follows two teenagers who crash a New Years Eve party as the clock gets closer to 2000. When the clock hits midnight, the group of partiers must survive against an army of machines.
While it is not my top film I have been looking forward to all year, “Y2K” is a project that has been on my radar ever since the trailer dropped. The film looked like a crazy good time that answers a question that I have to imagine some people have asked over the past 24 years. What if Y2K actually happened?
This is not the first time Y2K has been played out through a form of entertainment. There is a great “Family Guy” episode that came out around the time said event was on the verge of potentially occurring. It is a funny watch, I highly recommend it. “Y2K,” interesting enough, sometimes plays out like a “Family Guy” episode. There is a lot of throwback humor. There are also a couple sights that might make certain audience members wince. The characters, while well thought out and decently portrayed, are somewhat stereotypical. You have Jaeden Martell playing Eli, a well meaning guy who does not really happen to be that popular. You have his quirky, hyperactive best friend, Danny, played by Julian Dennison. Rachel Zegler plays Laura, a character that fits somewhere within the “popular girl” stereotype. And because this is a movie and we need our hero to want something, we come to know that the unpopular kid, Eli, ends up with the desire to kiss the more popular Laura, particularly during the first moments of the year 2000. And adding a similarity to another Seth MacFarlane project, kind of like the 2012 movie “Ted,” there is a celebrity who appears in the film as themself and they play a bit of a bigger role in the film than a simple cameo.
There are three main elements of “Y2K” that make it worth the price admission for me. I ended up seeing this film at a free screening, so maybe that is not the best phrase to use. But if I were to pay to see this in a theater again, I have a few factors as to why. First off, going back to the actors, they all do a good job with the material given to them. Each character is full of energy to the point where they almost leap off the screen. I especially adored the connection between Jaeden Martell and Rachel Zegler. For the most part, they are believable. There is a bit of an out of the blue turn between them that almost comes off as forced, but I can forgive it somewhat because the two characters are likable and I was nevertheless engaged even in lesser moments between them. Of all the characters in the film, Jaeden Martell is the center of the story, so we get to see him crushing on Zegler for a good amount of the runtime. I thought the film did a great job at displaying that. It felt like something I would have experienced in say middle school or high school. Something so fantastical, yet it is real, but also seemingly hard to act upon. I have a feeling this connection would evoke a sense of nostalgia for some people watching this at a later age.
Speaking of which, this movie tends to handle its 90s nostalgia and timeframe fairly well. The movie delivers a decent soundtrack. There are a lot of good songs in the film that match their specific scenes. The movie starts off doing its best impression of “Searching,” where our point of view is presented through a screen on a computer. As that is going on, there is a moment where dial-up Internet can be heard in the background, and we are seeing a conversation play out in AOL. We also get some moments in a video store. The nostalgia in this film is definitely played up, but it appears to work within the context of the story.
The film is also a horror comedy, and while the film is not the scariest of all time, it contains some good kills, some of which are very funny. Seeing various pieces of technology in this film become completely unhinged is a definite highlight for me. “Y2K” is probably not going to be a movie for everyone, but if you are someone who likes creative attacks and kills, you might be entertained.
Despite containing a lot of positives, “Y2K” is not going to win any Oscars. The film works and is structurally sound, but there is not a ton in it that changes the game. I say this despite also feeling that “Y2K” has given me some of the biggest laughs I had at the cinema this year. I do recommend watching this movie with a crowd. I think it is a great one to see with friends. It would make for a fun night out. If anything, it is a solid first directorial outing from Kyle Mooney, a former “Saturday Night Live” cast member. This film shows he has potential as a filmmaker, and his best work has probably yet to come. But for a first time film, it seems to work. When you have first time directors in recent years firing on all cylinders like Ari Aster with “Hereditary” or Greta Gerwig with “Lady Bird,” it is easy to forget that not all first films have the potential to end up being that director’s best in the long run. When I see debuts like these two, I automatically get excited for the director’s next movie because I think their first film is not just good, but one of the best of the year in which it came out. Therefore, that introduces a problem of recency bias. They say when you do something so lackluster or outright terrible, the only way to go is up. Kyle Mooney’s “Y2K” is definitely far from terrible, but just like something terrible, Mooney has the potential to step things up in his sophomore effort, and I look forward to seeing if he can do that should he continue his directorial career.
In the end, “Y2K” is a mighty fine film. Some would even say it is the bomb. “Y2K” is a film that I would watch a second time if given the opportunity. It is really funny, violent, and contains a likable cast. I am glad to see Rachel Zegler continuing to get more roles. Her cinematic resume is small, but she is one of this generation’s youngest and brightest talents. I loved her in “West Side Story.” I am not really a “Hunger Games” guy so I do not know how she is in “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” but I still think she is a great performer. She can sing. She can act. She can do it all. Hopefully she has a strong career going forward. While Kyle Mooney’s debut as a director is not perfect, “Y2K” carries its own sense of style. I think Mooney could have a future directing more movies. As far as this first movie goes, I had a great time. I am going to give “Y2K” a 7/10.
“Y2K” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” “Smile 2,” and “Nightbitch.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Y2K?” What did you think about it? Or, if you lived during the transition from 1999 to 2000? What was that time like for you? For me, I was not even two months old so I could not tell you. But for those who do remember that time more vividly, leave your comments down below! Or, if you were born in 2000 or later, what is something associated with the 1990s you enjoy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A Real Pain” is written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg (Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, The Social Network) who also stars in the film as David. Alongside him is Kieran Culkin (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Succession) as his cousin, Benji. Also in the film are stars including Will Sharpe (The Electrical Life of Louis Wain, The White Lotus), Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Kurt Egyiawan (The Exorcist, Skyfall), Liza Sadovy (A Small Light, EastEnders), and Daniel Oreskes (Law & Order: Organized Crime, Only Murders in the Building). This film is about two cousins who take a trip to Poland to see various spots throughout the country, in addition to their late grandmother’s house.
I saw the teaser trailer for “A Real Pain” a few times in the theater, and it piqued my curiosity. I know there is a longer trailer out for the film, but for whatever reason I never got around to watching it before the film released. But the teaser had a brisk pace, gave promising chemistry between two leads, and some quickly delivered dialogue back and forth. It was by no means my most anticipated movie of the year, but it was one that if I got the chance to watch it, I would take it. Thankfully, a friend and I got to watch it over its opening weekend.
This movie has a 90 minute runtime, but it delivers a lot of material despite being a short watch. Again, I watched the teaser trailer, so I know it involved two people visiting land far from home, but I did not exactly know the movie’s true premise. Because I watched the teaser, which set the tone for the film, gave a glimpse of some of the scenes, some of the characters. But it left me with the impression that this was going to be a buddy travel flick between two people. Maybe even with a heist element considering the first shot of the teaser shows our main duo hopping train cars.
As for that last part, I was way off. “A Real Pain” is not a heist movie. I am not saying I am disappointed, it is just not what I expected. It is, however, as I correctly predicted, a buddy travel flick. And like some other movies involving long trips, it is between a couple people who have varying personalities, lifestyle situations, and habits.
You have the more accomplished David (Jesse Eisenberg) who has a wife, has a family, has a career, and lives in New York City. He is paired up with his cousin Benji (Kieran Culkin), who we come to realize has a way of easily charming strangers. But he also has a lot of quirks, some of which certain people would find annoying. I like the diversification of these two and both actors play off each other well.
I have no idea how most audiences are going to see Culkin’s character through their personal tastes. Whether they end up liking him, thinking he is too much, or if he is a nuisance. He can be a bit much. But there is no denying that he is raw. Yes, Benji may come off as a manchild who refuses to leave the nest, but there is more to his life than meets the eye. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it could be one worthy of some awards contention. It is easily the standout performance of the film and that says something because Eisenberg holds his own as David.
The film features the two leads on vacation in Poland, but I would not call their adventure an escape. The two cousins, who are Jewish by the way, are there to see various Holocaust-related sites along with the home of their late grandmother. For the record, I am not Jewish, but even as someone who is not Jewish, I have to imagine seeing certain places that these people end up visiting can elicit a number of negative emotions. To think about what these places stood for, what people did in said places, it shows the dark side of humanity and leaves one to wonder how we got to where we are now. Around the midway point of the film, our characters end up visiting a concentration camp used during the Holocaust. They get a tour of the site, including the inside of a gas chamber. When we get to this point of the film, there is no music, minimal sound, nothing more than occasional dialogue. I sometimes talk about immersion on Scene Before, but that word is typically used in relation to something spectacular or hyperactive like a big battle sequence or a race between cars. This movie immersed me through its minimalistic tendencies. The movie was literally as empty as I felt watching it. I almost did not know what to say or think other than, “Why?”
There are a couple movies that come to mind if I were to compare “A Real Pain” to something else. Specifically, “Jojo Rabbit” and “Life is Beautiful.” Not only do the films deal with the events of World War II and the Holocaust in some capacity, but both films, perhaps by the miracle of a god, manage to find humor in the darkest of situations. All of the humor feels natural. You could even argue it is cathartic. It is an escape from the harsh reality people had to deal with. Sort of in the same way some see music or books. Heck, I sort of view movies in the same light. It is an escape from reality. This movie, like many others, let me leave my world for a little more than an hour. But it simultaneously does a great job at showcasing the wrongs of someone else’s.
Keeping the title of this movie in mind, “A Real Pain,” that is something this movie highlights in a variety of ways. Some people deal with pain by crying, others reflect, others pray. As far as Benji goes, he is a complicated individual who tends to hide whatever pain he is holding back for a period of time until he suddenly breaks. We see David kind of go down a similar path, but he seems to do a better job at keeping his emotions in check. We sometimes find out the effects the cousins come to discover as a result of their grandmother’s death. “A Real Pain” is a film that deals with the universal concept of grief. It also deals with the complication of life after a great suffering. There is a moment during the train ride where Benji questions whether it is right for him and others onboard to be sitting inside a high quality vehicle in first class. He questions whether something like this is justified after many people several decades ago dealt with one of the worst events in all of history. I cannot pretend “A Real Pain” is perfect. I think some people will end up finding Benji to be a little hard to handle at times, and there are a couple scenes that despite his character feeling real, I thought he was written to be a tad over the top. But “A Real Pain” delivers on a lot of things a great story can do. It makes you laugh. It makes you cry. It makes you sympathize with different characters. This is not my favorite film of the year, but I will not deny it nails a lot of things on the head.
In the end, “A Real Pain” is a real deal. With the help of a great cast and a singular vision from Jesse Eisenberg, the film manages to find light in darkness. I cannot recommend the film to everyone, but even if you are an easy person to make cry during movies, I think there will be a fair amount of joy and laughs to balance that out. I have no idea what Jesse Eisenberg has up his sleeve next behind the camera, but if it is as good as this, I will be happy. I am going to give “A Real Pain” an 8/10.
“A Real Pain” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Real Pain?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you think perfectly balances light and darkness? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 