“The Instigators” is directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Jumper) and stars Matt Damon (The Martian, Good Will Hunting), Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea, Gone Baby Gone), Hong Chau (Kinds of Kindness, The Menu), Michael Stuhlbarg (Call Me by Your Name, The Shape of Water), Paul Walter Hauser (Cobra Kai, Inside Out 2) Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible), Alfred Molina (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Spider-Man 2), Toby Jones (Frost/Nixon, W), Jack Harlow (White Men Can’t Jump), and Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Pinocchio). This film is about two men who go on the run with a therapist after a heist does not go as planned.
As someone who has lived in Massachusetts all his life, it should not come as a surprise that I have a few Boston-based movies under my belt. Movies like “The Departed,” “Good Will Hunting,” “Spotlight,” “Ted,” “Patriots Day,” “Stronger…” Granted I still have not seen everything like “Mystic River,” “Black Mass,” “Gone Baby Gone…” Still waiting to get around to those. But as someone from this area, I feel it is my duty to check out a Boston-based film when possible, which is one reason why I saw “The Instigators” recently.
Sadly though, I cannot say I was that excited for this movie. The trailer failed to impress me, and I did not think this movie was going to do that well.
There are times where I almost forgot I had to review this movie, which is really weird when you consider my experience with it. This is a true story… When I saw this film on opening Thursday night, I am not making this up, my theater was decked to the brim with “The Instigators” posters. If this were my bedroom, you would think I have an unhealthy obsession with this movie. That should probably give you some indication as to how my experience went down.
For the record, I do not despise “The Instigators,” but I also cannot say it is worth your time either. This is one of those movies that barely kept me awake as it went. Does it have a good pace to it? Sure. Do I like the cast in the movie? Sure. Do I think the movie has some clever moments? Sure. But everything about the overall experience of the film just screams middle of the road. There is nothing outright amazing about “The Instigators,” especially when compared to other Boston titles like “The Departed.” If I was in a Boston mood and I wanted to truly pay attention to every single detail on screen, I would simply turn on “The Departed.” But as for “The Instigators,” the situation in which I most likely see myself watching this movie again in the future would probably be when I just need some background noise. Part of me wants to say that I could maybe catch the movie on cable and just leave it on, but I highly doubt that Apple is going to allow that to happen. I do not think they are in that kind of business.
Now as someone who resides on the North Shore of the Bay State, I do fit into some local stereotypes. I do enjoy Dunkin’, I buy a ticket to a ballgame at Fenway, I have used the term “Storrowed” every once in a while, and I have even had the privilege of seeing a couple Boston Marathons in person. When I was in college the Boston Marathon route went right by my campus, so I took advantage of my commuter parking pass and got to see the event play out a couple times. Heck, I went to see this movie IN THE ONLY THEATER TECHNICALLY IN BOSTON, not any of its suburbs, selling tickets for it! But I have to be real with you, as much as I try, to varying successes and failures, to maintain my local roots, I have to admit this movie does a good job linking itself to the Greater Boston culture. When I say this however, I should also say, the movie almost does… TOO GOOD of a job. Sometimes the outcome this movie provides when it comes to its Boston tributes, if you can call them that, is almost pornographic. Whether it means Alfred Molina randomly showing up with Dunkin’, getting Rob Gronkowski of all people to make a rather gratuitous cameo, or having Hong Chau’s character mention she’s from Lynn during a chase and having the other characters say “Lynn Lynn the City of sin” just because. Though I must admit, there is a scene in the movie where we see a protest outside of Boston City Hall and I almost burst out laughing as soon as I saw a sign that read “FIX THE MBTA!”.
It is almost as if the crew behind this movie decided to ingrain themselves so heavily in Boston culture to the point where they sort of built a decent atmosphere for the film, but did not have the brains on how to make the film as entertaining as can be. Because as I look back at this film, I find to be uneventful, unmemorable, and minimally engaging. I cannot say I hate any of the characters on screen, but I am not going to remember their names in six months.
That said, this film is led by Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, and the two, to my lack of surprise, have decent chemistry in their roles. They both do a good job as two guys from Quincy, and even though I admit their journeys in this film fall into some pits of predictability, I enjoyed seeing their motivations play out and their personalities come to life. But when you have these two leading a movie like this, I kind of expect something more from the script or the plot, or even the direction.
Heck, this movie is directed by Doug Liman, whose resume partially includes “The Bourne Identity” and “Edge of Tomorrow,” which like those movies or not, you would probably agree with me when I say they look pretty cinematic. This movie honestly looks like it was made for television between its lighting that appears as if the crew forgot to brighten the bulb a tad occasionally. Yet at other times, it has some unusual camera tricks that try to appear cinematic, but only manage to feel jarring the longer I gaze my eyes upon them.
If I had to pick a performance in the film that stood out to me the most, it would probably be Ron Perlman as Mayor Miccelli. At a glance, Perlman very much looks the part of a politician. He has this look to him that like some politicians, you question yourself in the back of your mind on whether or not to trust him. His presence in the film made for some good scenes, especially towards the end.
And you know what? This is a poetic transition. If I had anything else to say that is positive about the film, I must admit, I was not 100% thrilled with all that it had to offer, but there are several scenes where you can easily be entertained by these characters. The entire cast oozes charisma, even if they are playing characters whose names you will probably erase from your memory after leaving the theater. Is part of it because some of the actors in the cast are recognizable? Perhaps. Why do you think I am going about this review referring to the actors names but not acknowledging their respective characters? But like some of their previous work, those recognizable actors play their parts well here. However, for me, this film was missing something. If anything the film is almost too stereotypical and lacking in any oomph that will make audiences remember it for years to come.
In the end, “The Instigators” is a somewhat entertaining movie, but it is not one that had me engaged the entire time. As the heist goes down, I am interested in what is going on. But I cannot say there are any standout moments in this film that will cement it as one of my favorites of the year. Does everyone in the cast do a good job? Again, sure. But they are not Oscar-worthy. This movie is on Apple TV+, and I can frankly see why. I have to be real, their record has not been working for me. Other than “CODA,” which is amazing, I cannot say I have seen one movie from Apple yet, and I include “Killers of the Flower Moon” in this thought, that has totally floored me. If you were planning on watching “The Instigators,” I am here to tell you your time will not be completely wasted, but you can probably use that time to do other things that would be more exciting. I am going to give “The Instigators” a 5/10.
“The Instigators” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Apple TV+ for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews like this, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sing Sing,” “Borderlands,” “Skincare,” “My Old Ass,” “Reagan,” and “It Ends with Us.” 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 Instigators?” What did you think about it? Or, since I clearly have no faith in their service, what is something you recommend on Apple TV+? Yes, I know they’ve got shows like “Ted Lasso,” “Severance,” “For All Mankind,” but I want to specifically ask if there are any movies from them that you enjoyed. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Deadpool & Wolverine” is directed by Shawn Levy (Free Guy, Night at the Museum) and stars Ryan Reynolds (Free Guy, The Adam Project), Hugh Jackman (The Greatest Showman, Reminiscence), Emma Corrin (My Policeman, A Murder at the End of the World), Morena Baccarin (Firefly, Greenland), Rob Delaney (Tom & Jerry, Ron’s Gone Wrong), Leslie Uggams (American Fiction, Empire), Aaron Stanford (12 Monkeys, Nikita), and Matthew Macfadyen (Quiz, Succession). In this film, Deadpool is invited to have a place in the sacred timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but he instead tries to find a variant of Wolverine to save his own universe.
There are no words in cinema in which I have opposed to a greater degree over the past number of years than comic book movie fatigue. And yes, comic book movies are cinema. End of story. While there have been bumps in the road in the comic book movie and television genre, I must admit that I have never once felt the need to jump ship. Despite the DCEU coming to an end, the final efforts of said cinematic universe were all quite fun from “Shazam: Fury of the Gods” to “The Flash” to “Blue Beetle.” That cinematic universe also gave me my favorite DC movie of all time, “The Suicide Squad,” which spun off into the incredible TV show “Peacemaker.” On the Marvel side, I do not give two squirts of urine about what anyone says here… I liked every MCU movie since “Endgame.”
Now the genre has had its downsides in recent years like “Wonder Woman 1984,” “Morbius,” “Madame Web,” and as much as I enjoy the MCU movies, I think some of the Disney+ originals pale in comparison. Although “WandaVision” is must-see TV. That said, the genre has delivered way more positives than negatives for me over the years, so I was excited for “Deadpool & Wolverine.” I love the first couple of “Deadpool” movies, I was excited to see what Kevin Feige, Ryan Reynolds and Shawn Levy can do with an R-rated MCU flick, so it was definitely going to bring some novelty to this ongoing saga. Admittedly, I never grew up with Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine unlike say Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man. “X-Men” was just never a part of my household at the time. But I have seen a few of those movies, which I have mostly enjoyed. I think Jackman does a good job in the role, he is a fine actor, so it was going to be fun to see what he would bring to this role one more time.
Safe to say, “Deadpool & Wolverine” was one of my most anticipated films of 2024. So how did it turn out?
It is one of the best comic book movies of the past few years.
To some of you reading this, such a statement may either mean a lot or a little to you. Because again, unlike some of you, I have not been fatigued by this sub-genre. But I honestly think if some of you reading this were done with Marvel movies or comic book movies in general, this film could revitalize some of your interest in that realm of film. Now, is it the best MCU movie ever? No it is not. In fact, the biggest problem I have with “Deadpool & Wolverine” is actually the biggest problem I had with many other MCU titles. Particularly the villain. Though I will say the villain this time around is a bit of a step up from “The Marvels,” which again, I had fun with.
But this movie is not about the villain, it is about the heroes. It is about two comic book icons coming together at long last. In fact, this movie, to my lack of surprise, reminds me of “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” If you read my review for that film, you would know that I refer to that it as a love-letter to the Spider-Man character, and the multiple eras such a character represents. That is what “Deadpool & Wolverine” is in a different way. Because this film not only serves as a love letter to the Deadpool and Wolverine characters. It also manages to sprinkle some love to an era of comic book movies that means a quite a bit to a certain group of people, even if they managed to vary on their level of success and failure.
What makes the release of “Deadpool & Wolverine” such a big deal is that it is one of the rare attempts at Disney making an R-rated film. This is a concept that is rather novel to the brand, particularly in its main line of films. Sure, Disney used to release films under Touchstone Pictures, which has its share of R-rated titles. Another defunct label of Disney’s, Hollywood Pictures, also had films with R-ratings. And now they have 20th Century Studios, which has not stopped with its mature slate. But this is the first R-rated Marvel Studios title. I honestly thought we would never see this day. Sure, DC has some R-rated titles in its own cinematic universe like “Birds of Prey” and “The Suicide Squad,” but neither of those films were particularly successful at the box office. That said, the first film came out just before a pandemic and the second film simultaneously released on HBO Max during a time when some people were weary about going to the cinema, so there is that. Yes, DC also has “Joker,” which was the first R-rated film to make a billion dollars at the box office, but I did not think something as popular as the MCU, which attracts a large audience, would have the guts to make something like this. In fact, if I were an executive at Disney, I too, would be somewhat weary of doing an R-rated film there. I would love it from a creative perspective, but from a financial and brand perspective, it is tough to justify.
But this film unleashes all the creativity it can, and judging by the box office total so far, it only helped the film financially. Conceptually, this film is quite clever. It manages to take certain portions of the Fox “X-Men” universe and sprinkle them over with things from the MCU and blend them together perfectly. This film has the DNA of the past two “Deadpool” movies, but it manages to make the universe feel more epic. It is a perfect hybrid of your typical MCU movie and your typical “Deadpool” movie. The tones never feel like they are clashing. It is like they took the first couple “Deadpool” movies and decided to put more money on the screen. The action sequences are incredibly stylistic and thrilling. Each one is as sweet and flashy as the last. This film has a marvelous opening sequence that could potentially make for the most exciting first five to ten minutes the MCU has ever done.
Also like “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” this film is also filled with moments that if you see this in a theater at a certain time and place, will likely result in audiences cheering and applauding. Only thing is, with “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” I was somewhat able to predict pretty much all the surprises that happened to be in those movies. The “Deadpool” movies have repeatedly mastered its marketing campaigns, and this one is no exception because it kept so many things under wraps to the point where certain moments happened that caught me totally off guard throughout the runtime. I would love to talk about some of these events, but I will let those of you who have not seen this movie enjoy the magic of checking them out yourselves.
But as for the things we know going in, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman have perfect chemistry as the titular characters. Knowing their relationship behind the scenes, this is a film that despite the existence of “Logan,” felt like a passion project these two wanted to do for years. I do not know what it took to get Hugh Jackman to play Wolverine one more time, but knowing how fun it is to watch these two together, it was worth it. This is primarily Deadpool’s story. The movie starts with Deadpool, features the character prominently in situations where he has to make tough choices and fight for the people he loves, but Wolverine gets a lot of screentime and every minute is well utilized.
Despite this being Deadpool’s story, we do not really get a lot of time with the characters from the past Deadpool movies like Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Vanessa, Yukio… They are in the movie. But their roles in the film are minor. They do not have a ton to do on screen even though they play a part in the plot and outcome.
In fact, on the more mainline “X-Men” side, Wolverine is for the most part, the main character we see in regards to that universe. That is not necessarily a bad thing because the film focuses more on making a robust story for its main duo rather than shoehorning as many X-Men characters as possible. It feels more like a movie than a stale reunion special. The film honors the legacies of both of these characters while giving them both another story for audiences to love. Maybe even Hugh Jackman’s swan song… Until he decides to make a crapton more money.
As mentioned, “Deadpool & Wolverine” comes with many of the successes and failures of the other MCU films. While the titular characters shine, Cassandra Nova, played by Emma Corrin is a semi-lackluster villain. Now, she is not all bad. During the first half of the film, I did not have any problems with her. I thought she was rather menacing and intimidating. I think they did a good job at introducing her. But by the end of the film, she came off as cliche-riddled and power hungry. There was not as much depth as I would have wanted for a character like this. In fact, I am rather surprised to say that I left this movie liking Matthew Macfadyen’s performance as Paradox a bit more in comparison. Not that I think Macfadyen’s a bad actor, he is great. But despite his role being smaller than Cassandra Nova’s in the grand scheme of things, his scenes are more memorable on top of his charisma and personality.
This film is not just a potential revitalization of the MCU, it is not just a finale for the Fox “X-Men” universe, it is not just a love letter to several comic book movies that came before, but it is also one that is not afraid to make fun of the industry. If you have followed either of the cinematic universes this movie represents, know a little bit about how filmmaking works, or even followed movie news over the past number of years, this film may be able to hit you in some way. There is one moment where Deadpool sort of highlights the collective reaction of the ongoing multiverse saga, which even as someone who appreciates said saga, it made me laugh. This is arguably the funniest movie in the MCU. Humor-wise, it is up there with the first “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Avengers: Infinity War.” Only thing, I would say those movies have jokes that stick the landing perfectly for general audiences, whereas the humor in “Deadpool & Wolverine,” while still likely to get large crowds laughing, is sometimes a bit more niche and maybe not for everyone. “Deadpool & Wolverine” is full of comedy gold from fantastic fourth wall breaks, excessive, yet well placed f-bombs, and some brilliant visual gags. There was no shortage of cackles in my screening. And if you go see this film in a crowded theater, I am sure you will have the same experience.
As far as the MCU goes, I would have say that “Deadpool & Wolverine” is definitely one of the better films. It is easily my favorite MCU installment post-“Endgame.” In the case of the proper “Deadpool” movies, I would still say the first film is my favorite, but this is a slight step up from “Deadpool 2.” I think it is a little bit funnier, a bit more action-packed, and has more memorable moments. “Deadpool & Wolverine” comes off as the most ambitious movie of its trilogy, and it shows. This has a slightly different feel from the past two “Deadpool” movies but manages to maintain what makes those predecessors great. If this is your genre, you have to see this movie as soon as possible. It is one that if you have friends or more mature family members in your circles, you have to watch with them just to see their reaction. Can you take a 10 year old to this movie? That’s a hard sell… Depends on the 10 year old. There are some things that are a bit tamer in this film compared to the original, but it is filled to the brim with excessive violence and foul language. I will let the world’s parents judge for themselves on whether or not they want to be remembered as the cool cats who gave their kids the memory of a lifetime.
As an entry point to this genre of movies and the MCU, there are definitely more accessible films like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Iron Man” or even “Ant-Man,” but I would say you’d be okay should you decide to skip the first two “Deadpool” movies, the “X-Men” films, or any of the MCU installments. Like all the other MCU followups, it definitely helps watching the past entries or even briefly brushing up on Wikipedia as you may be able to pick up on some nuance. But you can still watch “Deadpool & Wolverine” on its own and have a good time. The movie is stacked with fan service, so if you are hyperactively into these movies, chances are you will lose your mind in select moments of this latest installment. But if you are simply looking for a killer time at the movies, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is practically guaranteed to give you just that.
In the end, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is a blast that honors the past of the comic book movie genre. There is not a lot that I can complain about when it comes to the overall experience of this movie other than maybe how they handled the villain. But again, despite Cassandra Nova’s flaws, I will not deny that she had her moments and Emma Corrin did an okay job playing the character. If there is one movie that you should make an effort to see this summer, look no further than “Deadpool & Wolverine.” Great action, killer soundtrack, fun chemistry between the leads… It is a riot! “Deadpool & Wolverine” is now my favorite movie of 2024, and I am going to give it a 9/10.
“Deadpool & Wolverine” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review. My next reviews are going to be for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” 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 “Deadpool & Wolverine?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Marvel movie from the 20th Century Fox era? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Twisters” is directed by Lee Isaac Chung (Minari, The Mandalorian) and stars Daisy Edgar-Jones (Normal People, Under the Banner of Heaven), Glen Powell (Top Gun: Maverick, Anyone But You), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Brandon Perea (Nope, The OA), Maura Tierney (NewsRadio, ER), and Sasha Lane (Loki, American Honey). This is a standalone sequel to the 1996 film “Twister,” and is about a former tornado chaser who comes to Oklahoma with a meteorologist to scan tornados.
While there are a fair share of original movies being made, it is also accurate to say that franchise continuations tend to stand out more nowadays than said originals. This even includes “Twisters,” a movie I have been looking forward to since the first trailer came out. Between the aura of Glen Powell, the energetic vibes, the riveting tornado shots, and a pinch of that summer blockbuster feel, I was stoked. But here’s the thing, at the time, I have still yet to watch the original “Twister.”
I may have heard “Twisters” was happening prior to the Super Bowl, but chances are I did not care about it. Why? Well, it is the same reason why I have yet to see “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.” It is the same reason why I am probably not going to see “Alien: Romulus” in the theater. As good as those movies look, I have some catching up to do when it comes to those properties. Thankfully, unlike the several movies both of those franchises offer, “Twister” only has one film for me to worry about. And as for that 1996 original movie, I thought it was rather fun. It had some immersive camerawork, a decent cast, a good amount of tornado action, and at times, an incredible score by Mark Mancina.
How does this standalone sequel compare to the original? I mean… It is fine I guess. It has its moments. I would not exactly rave about it, but I do not hate it. “Twisters” is kind of like Sbarro pizza. It is not the best of its class, but if it were one of the only options, I would tolerate its existence. Did I have fun with “Twisters” while watching it? Of course I did. And I would say that I am glad I watched this film in a theater as opposed to my house for the first time. This is definitely the kind of movie you would want to see on a giant screen, perhaps with a few friends. I cannot completely confirm or deny as I saw the film by myself, but still, that is the vibe I got.
“Twisters” pays respect to its predecessor. This was something I heard going into this movie, and was honestly quite worried about. Part of me was worried that this would be a beat for beat remake. While it is not quite as beat for beat as the 2019 edition of “The Lion King,” “Twisters” has a lot of similarities to its 1996 counterpart. There is a scene in a movie theater, kind of like how the original had a scene in a drive-in. The line in this film, “We got twins,” is very much a tribute to 1996’s “We got cows.” It’s little things like those that can easily be picked up along the way if you pay enough attention. Speaking of repeated techniques, “Twisters” is shot entirely on 35mm film. The average viewer is probably not going to care about a detail like that, but as I watched the movie, it definitely had a rugged palette in every frame. Even if the frame looked clean, it still had a sense of character to it that put me into each scene. With that in mind, I would still claim “Twisters” has enough material in it for the movie to stand on its own. It definitely feels like it belongs in the same universe as its predecessor, but by no means is it a complete ripoff despite some degree of copy and pasting.
One of the differences between this film and the original however, is the cast. This time around, there is, by complete coincidence, only one cast member from the original movie who returns for this follow-up. And they do not even play the same character. Instead, we have room for new stars including Daisy-Edgar Jones, who is finely cast in the lead role of Kate. You have Anthony Ramos, who brings a lot of energy to the screen as Javi. But if you see this movie yourself, chances are you are going to agree that there is one true star of the show…. Glen Powell as Tyler Owens.
Some argue that the movie star is dead, but if there is anyone who could potentially defeat that argument, Glen Powell is honestly a contender. As much as I hated “Anyone But You,” I thought Powell was far and away the best part of the film. Much like that movie, he oozes an endless stream of charisma. Every line out of him is perfectly delivered. His presence is incredible. If I had to come up with a word or two to describe Powell in “Twisters,” it would be “rockstar.” The moment he steps on screen, it is almost like this movie finished its opening act, and now he comes out and unleashes a sense of star power that is almost indescribable. I have no desire to ride a tornado. It is not my thing, but if anyone were to convince me I should, Tyler Owens might be the guy. Of course, there are still movie stars out there who have developed their career to a high like Dwayne Johnson, Tom Cruise, Ryan Reynolds… They have been on the scene for years and to some degree, they are all able to get butts into seats. After seeing “Twisters,” I am convinced Glen Powell is going to be looked back on years from now as one of this generation’s most adored talents. If there is a movie coming out that doesn’t exactly look great, I am sure it will get a boost at the box office if you simply put Powell’s face on the poster.
I also like the background behind Powell’s character. The movie establishes that Tyler Owens is a successful YouTuber. Owens has built a channel documenting his storm chases, earning him the nickname, “Tornado Wrangler.” He definitely delivers the energy you would expect out of a popular YouTuber or vlogger, I think Powell did a good job at channeling the traits I am used to seeing from some of my favorite personalities. The one thing though I would note is that Owens probably needs to work on his copyright game. Now, on YouTube, you can probably have some videos with copywritten material fly depending on the circumstances. There are times they can go unacknowledged or the owner of such material may not even care. But typically, it is wise for creators, especially for those trying to make money on their videos, to use royalty free music in their content, unlike Owens, who is making a video while blasting a copywritten song in the background. Just something that I noticed during the film that I probably would have changed if I were in control. I think it would have been funny to have Owens playing some fairly often used Kevin MacLeod song. It would have caught me really off guard in a good way.
Though I have to be real, much like the original “Twister,” this movie is probably not going to have much replay value for me. Am I glad I saw “Twisters?” Yes. Especially considering I saw it in the theater. But compared to the original, while “Twisters” is definitely equal in its own right when it comes to star power, feels a tad weaker when it comes to characterization. But at the same time, the characters do to a degree feel fairly fleshed out. The script is not really anything to write home about. The biggest thing this movie has going for it is Glen Powell’s personality. Honestly, his aura stands out more than the tornados themselves. That said, the sound is quite immersive. The film is decently shot. And it definitely has a fun factor to it. It is a fine movie to watch in order to kill a couple hours and maybe never watch again. You will not have any regrets watching this movie, but maybe not a ton of fond memories in the years down the road depending on your viewing experience.
In the end, “Twisters,” as a theatrical experience, is definitely one you would not want to miss. If it is playing in a theater near you, I would totally justify going to watch it. But this might just be a one and done film. There is not a ton of flair to it. It is not the best film of the year, nor is it the worst. For me, it is somewhere in the middle. I think the original is a slightly better experience, but if you do enjoy the original, you might enjoy this one to some degree as well. I am going to give “Twisters” a 6/10.
“Twisters” is now playing in theaters and is available to buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the latest entry to the MCU and one of my most anticipated movies of the year. You will have to find out next week if it lives up to the hype. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” 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 “Twisters?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Twister” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is directed by George Miller (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) and stars Anya Taylor-Joy (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The New Mutants), Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Tom Burke (Mank, The Souvenir), and Alyla Browne (Sting, Three Thousand Years of Longing) in a prequel film that follows its titular character’s origins throughout various stages of her life, before she meets Mad Max.
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is one of those films that had my interest ever since it was first announced. And as much as I know people love Charlize Theron’s take on the character back in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” I was very much excited to see what Anya Taylor-Joy could do with the role. She is one of the hottest names in Hollywood right now, racking up several projects that have given her a diverse resume. Everything from Jane Austen adaptations like “Emma.,” to visionary horror titles like “Last Night in Soho,” to a video game adaptation that has become one of the decade’s most mainstream titles, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” I am proud to say that when it comes to Anya Taylor-Joy’s take on the Furiosa character, I was not disappointed. Like all of her other roles, she plays the part well. Despite this movie having a female protagonist, this movie feels pretty masculine. And I mean that in a positive way. As I watched this movie, I was on a bit of a high, and Anya Taylor-Joy is the drug that fueled it.
In fact, all the actors in this film are great. None of them feel out of place. Not only does Taylor-Joy provide a superstar outing as Furiosa, but her younger variant, played by Alyla Browne, also shines bright. Lachy Hulme does a good job as Immortan Joe, who we previously saw played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in “Fury Road,” rest in peace. In fact, that’s not his only role in the film, because he is credited with playing Rizzdale Pell, a gang member serving under this film’s most enjoyable character to watch, Chris Hemsworth’s Dementus.
They say a movie is only as its good as its villain, so I am happy to report that Dementus will end up being one of my favorite on-screen villains I have seen this year. While Chris Hemsworth is playing a different character entirely, it is safe to say that he is putting the “mad” in “Mad Max.” He’s over the top, bombastic, and kind of wonderfully demented. Sometimes he is so rage-filled it is kind of artistic. There is something beautiful about it. Also, I love how he has a line twisting a classic phrase where he utters, “Lady and gentlemans.” Chef’s kiss.
And much like Hemsworth’s Thor sometimes, I can say Dementus’ beard game in this movie is strong. Just look it it. I have grown out my facial hair quite a bit from time to time, but I cannot say I have ever grown a beard like the one Dementus has. Adding to the beautiful rage of this character, Hemsworth himself has something to say to back that up. Speaking with Variety, Hemsworth goes on about his experience in the makeup chair…
“Twas justifiably irritated by the end of it. That really helped my performance-there was a nice amount of pent-up rage simmering under the surface.”
Take this as a lesson kids. If you work hard enough, and learn some patience by sitting in a chair, you too can entertain tons of people by becoming a bit of a maniac. Inspiring stuff.
That said, looking back at “Furiosa,” this movie ends on a bit of an interesting note. I do not want to spoil everything that happens in this film, but if you are a novice to this franchise, I will remind you once again this is a prequel to “Mad Max: Fury Road.” A film that, and I apologize to the thousands of cinephiles I am inevitably going to irritate, I find to be a tad overhyped.
Now to find that flame shield…
Nevertheless, I recognize that a lot of work went into “Mad Max: Fury Road,” not to mention a lot of money. Based on research via IMDb, the total budget of the film comes out to $150 million. Despite being older and less expensive, it still looks better than some of the more recent Marvel projects for example, including Hemsworth’s own “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Just so we have the statistics in place, I will remind you that “Furiosa” cost more than “Fury Road,” specifically $168 million. For the record, Wikipedia says “Fury Road” cost anywhere between $154.6–185.2 million, but if I had to compare “Fury Road” and “Furiosa” side by side, I would say that “Fury Road,” depending on what the actual budget is, feels like the slightly bigger bang for the studio’s buck. It is also a slightly better movie as a matter of fact. Story-wise, both of these movies do not have the most Shakespearean of plots or happenings. They are pretty simple when it comes to their concepts. And honestly, in the case of “Furiosa,” I sometimes wish I were more interested in some of the goings on that we witnessed on screen. “Furiosa” has a runtime of 148 minutes, and I truly felt that runtime. I have no problems with movies going on for that long. In fact on paper, one of the pros of having such a long runtime for a movie like this is that we get to see some pretty cool extended action sequences. There are some action scenes that go on for quite a bit and had me glued to the screen. But substance-wise, “Furiosa” feels kind of thin. Does this movie try to deliver a fun story? I guess. But other than seeing Furiosa grow up, I did not feel as engaged with this film as I wanted to. That said, one thing I was engaged by was seeing Furiosa’s exposure to certain torturous acts, and how much said acts shaped the perspective of the character throughout the film.
But this film ends on an interesting, yet rather fitting note. I do not think this is a spoiler. If you think otherwise, you do you. But the end credits for “Furiosa” start with a few minutes of clips essentially detailing “Mad Max: Fury Road.” After all, again, this film leads into that one. Though it got me thinking… Upon leaving the movie, I did not say I wanted to go back and watch “Furiosa” a second time. If anything, the credits made me think I should potentially revisit “Fury Road” instead. While “Furiosa” is well done in its own right, it made me wish I were watching something better. I have seen “Fury Road” twice, and even though I think it is not the masterpiece some call it, I recognize there is plenty to like about it. And I think there is more to like about “Fury Road,” than “Furiosa.” Sure, “Furiosa” could stand as its own movie, but at the end of the day, it doubles as the world’s most robust, compelling advertisement for “Mad Max: Fury Road.”
Much like “Fury Road,” “Furiosa” tends to use star power to sell itself between the casting of Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth. However, from an effects perspective, the money is definitely there, but it does not mean the quality is there. What makes the look of “Fury Road” so appealing at times is despite knowing it is a movie, it tends to look as raw and lifelike as it could in such an environment on display. In “Furiosa,” there are a fair share of effects that look like they could belong in a blockbuster movie, but they feel like they belong more in a demo for the sake of showing off a new piece of tech. There is a lot less verisimilitude with these effects this time around. While “Furiosa” does not have the worst special effects I have seen, they are a significant step down compared to its predecessor.
And that’s the thing about this movie. It reminds me a lot of “Fury Road,” but it does not do anything as exciting as it. Plus between some long buildup, some forgettable characters, and scenes that probably did not need to go on as long as they did, I do not think “Furiosa” is worth watching a second time. How does it compare to the other “Mad Max” installments? I will be real, I have not seen any of the other ones. I want to, I just have not had the time. I could tell George Miller made the movie the way he intended. I just wish it were better.
In the end, “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” has plenty of positives. But there is not a lot in this movie, maybe other than Hemsworth as the villain, that truly stands out. Do not get me wrong. Anya Taylor-Joy does a good job as the title character. The film, despite some overpolishing, is easy on the eyes. The color palette of the film is appealing. I say this film looks like an over the top tech demo, and I meant such a thought as a bit of a dig. But it does not mean the film all looks bad. Also, if the Oscars were tomorrow, “Furiosa” would definitely be nominated for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. But when all is said and done, I would rather watch “Mad Max: Fury Road” one more time as opposed to watching “Furiosa” again. I am going to give “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” a 6/10.
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is now playing in theatres and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Thelma,” the new movie starring June Squibb as an elderly woman who tries to get her money back from scammers. Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” 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 “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga?” What did you think about it? Or, which Furiosa-centric story do you think is superior? “Fury Road” or “Furiosa?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Boy Kills World” is directed by Moritz Mohr (Akumi, Ronin 2035) and stars Bill Skarsgård (Malignant, It), Jessica Rothe (Mary + Jane, Happy Death Day), Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey, Good Behavior), Brett Gelman (Stranger Things, Fleabag), Isaiah Mustafa (It Chapter Two, Murder at Yellowstone City), Yahan Ruhian (Warrior, Bullet Train), Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Monkey Man), H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers, Archer), and Famke Janssen (X-Men, Taken). This film is set in a dystopian time and is about a deaf and mute person who is trained to become an instrument of death. Now he must use all that he knows to achieve revenge over the murder of his family.
If I were to make a top 10 most anticipated movies of 2024 list at the beginning of the year, there is a solid chance “Boy Kills World” probably would not have been on there. Why? Because I had no idea about it. But had I seen the marketing for it at the beginning of the year, I probably would have considered sliding it into one of the spots, or at least noting it as an honorable mention. “Boy Kills World” looked like a bloody good time. And if you put Bill Skarsgård, one of this generation’s great actors together with H. Jon Benjamin, one of this generation’s great voiceover artists, you may have a recipe for a winning combo. On paper, this sounds like my kind of movie. In execution, this is most certainly my kind of movie. It is like if “Deadpool” had a baby “John Wick: Chapter 4” and it just so happened to be set in a environment straight out of “The Hunger Games.” I am not even a huge “Hunger Games” fan, but my god, is this movie delicious…
“Boy Kills World” is as simple as can be when it comes to the premise. Basically, a guy has to survive against his enemies all to get to a specific person he needs to kill. But the way this movie goes about it is unbelievably satisfying. Technically speaking, this movie has a color palette that bridges a gap between grit and fantasy… Fluid camerawork that flawlessly showcases an endless series of incredible action sequences from start to finish… And on top of that, some surprisingly intricate and palatable production design. For a movie set in a dystopian future, I was pleasantly surprised to know how much pizazz said future has.
The costume design in this film is a bit of a standout to me. It is kind of all over the place in terms of color, design, and vibe. But the movie somehow makes all of those costumes feel consistent with one another. Each costume suits the characters’ personalities in addition to the personality of the movie itself.
Going back to the “Deadpool” meets “John Wick” comparison, this movie, much like those, involves our main character looking for a little payback in honor of those he loves. Also like both movies, our protagonist, in this case, Boy, is a mastermind when it comes to killing. The stellar choreography we see from him certainly adds to the thrills as well. And much like “John Wick: Chapter 4,” I found this movie to be very video game-esque. Every other moment, our protagonist has something new to fend off, and each time, it is done with a lovingly quick pace. The action not only looks great, but it is to some degree, nonstop. In fact, one could argue that this movie is more video game-like than “John Wick: Chapter 4,” because the main character does not speak. You ever play a video game like “The Legend of Zelda” or “Portal” where everyone has lines except for the main character? That’s what this movie reminds me of. Except in this case, unlike say Link from “The Legend of Zelda,” we actually get some context fed to us as to why Boy does not speak, and it works.
The closest we get to the main character speaking is H. Jon Benjamin being a guiding voice for our protagonist, and he does an excellent job all the way through. He has a lot of lines in this movie. While I sometimes complain about actors, particularly in voiceover roles, playing themselves like Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart practically did in “DC League of Super-Pets,” I am going to give H. Jon Benjamin a pass because there is an endless sense of energy in his performance. He is one of the best parts of this movie, and we do not even see him! On top of that, if you have never heard H. Jon Benjamin’s voice, turn on any episode of “Bob’s Burgers” right now because he is legendary. There is a saying in film that you should show instead of tell. That should always be the priority. But if you want to know how much I enjoyed this movie, I will remind you that H. Jon Benjamin’s “telling” is probably some of the coolest I have witnessed in cinematic history. He can make anything sound epic, and he is only helped by a dynamite script.
It only makes sense that someone like H. Jon Benjamin would have a voiceover role in this film, because not only does it feel like a video game, it has a lot of cartoony elements. Yes, the movie is live-action. But going back to the costumes, the movie rides a fine line with them to the point where they feel authentic, but fantasy-like. The violence is over the top, creative, and bloody to no end. A lot of the dialogue is expressive, comedic, and leans into an occasional digression here and there. Also, one of the key points of this movie is the Culling, which gathers 12 people who are going to be murdered on live television. The way the movie goes about handling something like this, to my surprise, makes me buy it. If you ever watch live sports, you would notice how riddled they are with commercialism and sponsorships. When we get to the Culling, we find out the assigned killers are dressed as breakfast cereal mascots. I do not want to see a future where we have deadly events like this. But if we ever get to that point, I can see a timeline where something like this happens. After all, people need to get paid, and big corporations need to sell cereal. It’s a win win. And in “Boy Kills World’s” favor, it adds to the humor of it all despite the movie being dark and gory. There is a fun side to it.
This movie is not only killer when it comes to style, but it slays when comes to substance. Story-wise, the movie does a good job at letting us get to know about not just our protagonist, but it also does the same when it comes to handling his sister. I thought she was a standout. From the marketing, this looks like a movie that was going to deliver on action, maybe let the story take a back seat. But no, I was pleasantly surprised by how invested I became in the plot, and the details of our protagonist. This movie has multiple winning combos. A revenge tale mixed with a dystopian vibe. One of this generation’s great physical actors mixed with one of this generation’s great voice talents. And on top of the sick action, you have an admirable story. What more could you want out of a movie like this?
In the end, it is a shame that “Boy Kills World” only made 3 million bucks at the box office, because it is one of my favorite films of the year so far. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite comedies of last year, “Bottoms,” not only because it delivers on laughs, but because it is set in a world that makes up an occasionally absurd set of rules that I can somehow buy into. If you want to see action that pushes the limits, this movie is for you. If you are not a fan of blood, violence, gore, or seeing people get killed in creative ways, maybe stay away from this one. But I am a sick person, so this movie was certainly for me. I am going to give “Boy Kills World” an 8/10.
“Boy Kills World” is unfortunately, not playing in many theaters right now. I checked for showtimes in Los Angeles and New York City and could not find anything. If you live where I live, in Massachusetts, there is one theater playing it in Rockport right now. Not sure where else it is playing. But if it is playing near you, see it. I endorse this film. Otherwise, you can preorder it right now to watch on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Challengers!” Stay tuned! Also, be sure to check out my reviews for “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” “IF,” and “The Garfield Movie.” 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 “Boy Kills World?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year you wish more people were aware of? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Civil War” is directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and stars Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man, Wimbledon), Wagner Moura (Elite Squad, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Pacific Rim: Uprising), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Dune, Lady Bird), Sonoya Mizuno (House of the Dragon, Devs), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder). This film is set in a dystopian future United States and centers around a group of people trying to make it to Washington, DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.
As I have said on this blog before, some of my favorite directors working today include Christopher Nolan, Damien Chazelle, and Quentin Tarantino. Those are usually the big three that come to mind. Although one director I happen to admire somewhere down that list is Alex Garland. I love his directorial debut, “Ex Machina.” A film that has become increasingly relevant and captivating with age. Looking back at his sophomore directorial effort, “Annihilation,” I think that film is a slight step down. But there is a lot that works in that film. Visually, it is uniquely stunning. Natalie Portman does a great job in the lead role. As an experience, I found parts of the film trippy, intriguing, and even a little terrifying. Looking back, it also has one of the better musical scores of the past decade. As for Alex Garland’s next movie, “Men,” I cannot say I hated it… In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, it is a thumbs up. The actors do a good job. The color palette and overall aesthetic pops. But it felt like there was something missing from that film. It lacked an oomph of sorts. Naturally, I was curious about “Civil War.” Even with that in mind, I was not fully sure where to set my expectations. I thought this movie could go one way or another. It was either gonna stand out in such a positive way or in such a negative way. Turns out, it does both.
“Civil War” is not a movie I am going to recommend for everyone. If you are looking to have a good time, then maybe go see something else. I am not saying that “Civil War” is a terrible movie. It is far from being bad. But if anything, it reminds me of when I watched say “12 Years a Slave,” which to a certain degree, is not the happiest watch. The two movies are completely different in terms of plot and execution, but they deliver similar feelings of uneasiness. This movie made me feel genuinely uncomfortable. There are scenes in this film where I am tittering in my seat because the context of said scene is frankly disturbing to say the least. And honestly, and I mean this as a compliment in regards to “Civil War,” some of those scenes feel real. Or if not real, genuine enough to the point where I believe it could happen. This is especially true for one scene that has caught my attention since first watching the trailer.
If you saw the marketing for “Civil War,” you have probably seen Jesse Plemons on screen. He plays an ultranationalist and he owns the role to the tenth degree. I am sure Plemons is the nicest of guys in real life, but I would never want to come across this character in my travels. His portrayal of this character, simply known as “Soldier,” is delivered with subtlety, but even his calm mannerisms pack a punch. Whenever he is on screen, I am simply waiting to hear a pin drop, or anything else that would get me to jump out of my chair. I know I just saw “Abigail,” which by definition, is a horror movie prominently featuring a vampire. But I have to be real, compared to Abigail, Plemons’s character is nightmare fuel.
The strongest point for “Civil War” is how easy it is for me to feel like I’m in the middle of the action. I saw this movie in IMAX, and of the IMAX experiences I had, this is one of the more interesting ones. Because when I go to IMAX, I go for the thrills, the chills, and the excitement that, like the opening countdown suggests, CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGES and EARTH-SHATTERING SOUND can bring. This movie was almost too loud at times, but I also think that from Garland’s point of view, that was on purpose. The gunfire, explosions, and all the other ruckus of war were dialed up to an 11 to the point where I felt like I was there. Part of me assumed I was actually in the moment with Kirsten Dunst or whoever else was on screen at the time.
Kirsten Dunst plays Lee (left rear), a photojournalist. When it comes to defining a main character for “Civil War,” it seems as if there are limited solid options on the table. This movie is a controversy generator, but I will note that when it comes to selecting a main character, a photojournalist like Lee is a smart choice. Lee is active enough to the point where she is technically involved in the war, but her job basically keeps her from picking a side. Dunst is well cast in the role and delivers quite a performance. She does a good job.
The film may be called “Civil War,” but at its core, you could argue that this film is essentially a road trip movie. It is about a group of characters trying to get from point A to point B with the intentions of running into as few obstacles as possible. Along for the ride is Wagner Moura as Joel (right front), a Reuters journalist. Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (left front), a New York Times journalist and Lee’s mentor, and Cailee Spaeny as Jessie Cullen (right rear), an aspiring photographer. All of these actors fit into their roles nicely and have good chemistry. Casting-wise, this movie hit the jackpot.
As I said earlier, “Civil War” is a movie that stands out to me in both a positive and negative way. In addition to the balance between the thrills and all around discomfort this movie brings to the table, this notion also stands true for its technical aspects. I have already talked about how the sound does its job while also coming off as one of the movie’s drawbacks. But much like the sound, the film editing has my brain driving itself in circles.
There are points in this movie that had me thinking to myself that the editing is not just great, it is a contender to win an Oscar next year. In fact, the editing in this film, in addition to being perfectly paced, spectacularly highlights the power of photojournalism. This is something that is personal to me as someone who has spent the past year working in news, but also as someone who has taken journalism classes in college. But if I have one thing to say about the final edit, it is that there are a couple of music choices that are about out of left field. I think the film’s music, for the most part, works. But there are one or two instances where I found myself perplexed.
As for the film’s reflectiveness of our society, obviously there are moments that feel genuine enough that remind me of the world we live in today. But as for the idea that California and Texas could unite in war anytime soon, I found that to be a bit of a fantasy. At the same time though, I do not entirely care that they are in this war together. If this film felt more genuine than it is, chances are it would generate more controversy than it already unleashing amongst its audiences. I went to see a movie with a friend of mine in March. One of the trailers was for “Civil War.” Based on what she saw, she thought this movie should never have happened. Based on her words, I gathered she thought a movie like this could potentially be dangerous. Personally, I can see where she is coming from. This is why, again, if you are looking for are a looking for an escape, maybe this is not the movie for you. As for me, I think “Civil War” is one of the better films of the year. It is not quite on the level of say “Dune Part Two,” but much like that recent science fiction masterpiece, “Civil War” is technically powerful and delivers a one of a kind experience.
In the end, “Civil War” is not going to be a film I will end up watching on a Friday night anytime soon, but I am glad I checked it out. It is a film that is huge in scope, massive in world-building, but in terms of the overall premise, it is as simple as can be. The story is nothing more than just journeying from point A to B and making sure nobody dies along the way. The cast is well-rounded and marvelously put together. Jesse Plemons, despite not having an official credit, practically steals the show. Nick Offerman also does a good job as the President. I thought he fit the role perfectly. The film is not flawless. In fact, even the aspects of the movie that lean more positive have some glaring negatives attached. When it comes to ranking the Alex Garland movies, this is not as enthralling as “Ex Machina” or as exciting as “Annihilation,” but it is certainly more memorable than “Men.” I am going to give “Civil War” a 7/10.
“Civil War” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! While a lot of people ended up seeing “Civil War” when it came out, my next review on the other hand is for a film that practically no one bothered to watch. That my friends, is “Boy Kills World,” which only made a few million dollars at the box office. I am proud to be one of the lucky individuals that had the pleasure of watching this experience of a flick. I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it with you all. If you want to see this review 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 “Civil War?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Alex Garland movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is directed by Adam Wingard (The Guest, Blair Witch) and stars Rebecca Hall (The Prestige, The Town), Brian Tyree Henry (Atlanta, Bullet Train), Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey, The Guest), Kaylee Hottle, Alex Ferns (Andor, Chernobyl), and Fala Chen (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, The Undoing). This is the fifth entry to the MonsterVerse franchise as the two titular titans find themselves in battle once again. Meanwhile, a set of humans venture to Skull Island and unravel its mysteries.
Before we begin this review, I must shoutout my favorite film of 2023, “Godzilla Minus One.” I did not think the film was going to be bad, but I was not prepared for just how good that flick was going to be. Once the picture was over, I had to ask myself whether what I just watched was real. I did not think I was watching a “Godzilla” movie and instead, something better. But that’s probably an indicator of my limited experience with the franchise. Because most of it was through the ongoing MonsterVerse, which of course also has King Kong. Truthfully, the MonsterVerse does not have the best batting average when it comes to quality. “Godzilla” is barely passable. “Kong: Skull Island” had some fun moments. “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is one of the biggest disappointments I have ever seen. “Godzilla vs. Kong” was admittedly one of the most fun experiences I had at the movies the year it came out. That said, the story and characters needed some work. Of the four previous movies, I had experiences with three of them that lean in a more positive direction, but I cannot say any of them are iconic.
I was not really looking forward to this installment. This would come as a bit of a surprise given how much I enjoyed the last movie. But the trailers did not win me over. It seemed to come with the same problems with the last film despite how much I enjoyed it. At the same time, there was no real oomph for the film. I mean, Godzilla’s pink now. Sure…
Additionally, like some other people, I continue to question how he can run so fast. I am genuinely bewildered as to how this speed is possible for someone like Godzilla.
But low expectations do not necessarily guarantee a bad movie. In fact, the lower my expectations, the greater the potential for a pleasant surprise, which is one of the greatest feelings I can have as a moviegoer. Unfortunately, there is no surprise here with “Godzilla x Kong.” It is not great. Thankfully, it is not as bad as “Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” which was another level of boring. But this movie feels like a classic case of looks over personality. The positives in this movie mainly come down to the dazzling visual effects, occasionally cool action sequences, and the overall neat design of Skull Island. Action-wise, the biggest problem I have is when things start to go down, I wish I felt more engaged with the stakes and the story. During “Godzilla vs. Kong,” I watched the action sequences and wondered where it would end up taking the characters involved. In “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” the conflict and stakes did not feel as present as the last film. I felt like I was watching monsters fighting as opposed to immersing myself in the world and asking what is going to come of said fights. However, there are a couple instances in the choreography that I was genuinely not expecting. I did not laugh during this movie as much as I would believe it wanted me to, but I almost died during one particular sequence where Kong uses someone else as a weapon. I was cackling like an idiot. Speaking of which, when it comes to the script, I am sure the people who wrote this movie are not idiots, but I certainly felt like an idiot while hearing some of the dialogue.
Every other line uttered by the humans on Skull Island feels like something out of a tutorial or straight up exposition dump. I understand that this is a fantasy world and it is something we have not seen, but the dialogue out of these characters feels like it is bridging into wonderland. I will say though, one of the reasons why I think “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is superior to “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is because this new movie tends to at least embrace the fun of its absurd moments, even if I think they are too far-fetched, whereas “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” feels serious despite having an occasional failed attempt to throw in a funny line here and there. That said, both movies have the same problem. The humans.
Some of the humans from “Godzilla vs. Kong” make a return here. You’ve got Brian Tyree Henry back as Bernie Hayes (right). And he is just about as interesting as he was in 2021. That is if you can call a guy whose primary personality trait is “wacko podcaster” interesting.
I think the best human character of the entire cast is also one of the returning roles, specifically, Kaylee Hottle as Jia. I think her connection to Kong, which was established in the previous installment, makes for one of the film’s better elements of the story. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast feels like they are just there. There is nothing particularly striking about them.
Despite the throwaway human characters and lackluster dialogue, this movie, oddly enough, tends to kill it when it comes to visual storytelling at times. Specifically, when it comes to the monsters. Now, the monsters do not speak English. The closest many of these beasts come to talking is roaring. But there are select moments, most notably when it comes to characters like Kong and Skar King, the latter of whom is an effective villain. When I was watching select scenes with these characters, part of me wished I could spend more time with them as opposed to the humans who often felt as if they were interfering with the film’s quality. In fact, for a movie with “Godzilla” being the first word in the title, I am kind of surprised we did not get more screentime with “Godzilla” this time around. That said, this ultimately came off as Kong’s story more than anyone else. The movie is mostly set in his world, and shows off everything it has to offer, both good and bad. Therefore, when it comes to providing a Kong-centric journey, the movie does its job. Yes, Godzilla is there. But this is more of a “Kong” movie than a “Godzilla” movie. I mean, I get why he has more screentime. When you have all these human characters, you probably want a more humanized monster at the center. Of the two titular titans, Kong is the clear winner.
If I had anything else to add, I would say I am surprised humanity has not tried harder to turn against these monsters after seeing all the destruction they do to their world. The sound design in this film is to no surprise, boisterously cool. Also, out of all the things I expected to see in this movie, monster dentistry was not one of them. Remember how I said the movie sometimes embraces its silly nature? There is literally a whole scene dedicated to giving Kong a new tooth. I mean… I have seen stranger things. But even in this world, I admittedly almost have trouble buying this concept as much as it tries to blend itself into the script.
In the end, maybe it is because I feel spoiled after watching the Shakespearean masterpiece that is “Godzilla Minus One,” I feel like “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is a ginormous waste of time. On the technical side, the film comes supersized with several positives from the way it is shot to the color grading to the sound to overall scale of everything on screen. Skull Island feels massive and inviting from scene one. It is almost like its own character. But everything surrounding it feels second tier. Every other time a human said something, I wanted to roll my eyes. Their involvement in the story did not do much for me. Honestly, when it comes to Godzilla’s presence in the film, I kind of felt underwhelmed. The moments he was on screen were okay, I just wish he were there a bit longer. I was not as engaged in this story as I wanted to be despite a few decent action scenes. I am not going to pretend 2021’s “Godzilla vs. Kong” had the best story either. But not only did it have better action, but as far as overall progression and pacing goes, I prefer that movie over this one. I am going to give “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” a 4/10.
“Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming soon! My next review is going to be for Dev Patel’s new film, “Monkey Man.” Stay tuned! Also, look out for my thoughts on “Abigail,” “Civil War,” “Boy Kills World,” “Challengers,” and “The Fall Guy.” 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 “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite entry in the current MonsterVerse? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Kung Fu Panda 4” is directed by Mike Mitchell (Trolls, The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part) and Stephanie Stine (Raya and the Last Dragon, How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World) and stars Jack Black (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, School of Rock), Awkwafina (Renfield, Migration), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Malcom in the Middle), James Hong (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Mulan), Ian McShane (John Wick, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), Dustin Hoffman (Kramer vs. Kramer, Rain Man), and Viola Davis (Suicide Squad, Fences). This fourth installment to the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise centers around Po, who must become the Spiritual Leader and seek the next Dragon Warrior. As he deals with this new curveball in his life and finds himself in kahoots with a grey fox, Po must also keep the evil Chameleon from bringing back his past foes from the spirit realm.
One of the reasons why I am such a movie nut is because ever since kindergarten, I had a television in my bedroom. Therefore, almost every night, I would put a movie on the television. Around third and fourth grade, one of the movies I would loop on my DVD player is “Kung Fu Panda.” And I mean it when I say loop. One of the things I noticed early on about that DVD is that unlike many others I owned, it automatically starts the movie after a short period of inactivity. So when I would fall asleep to it, I would eventually wake up and find myself watching another scene from the film. It was like playing movie roulette. Safe to say, I watched “Kung Fu Panda” a buttload of times as a kid. And I must also note that the second film, which I watched a few years later, is on the same level as the original for me. To be frank, based on a recent rewatch of all three films, I think the second one might be my favorite. The third one’s not bad, but it has its fair share of weaknesses. It leans more heavily towards a comedic route whereas the other two tend to keep comedy and drama slightly more balanced. Although that is kind of funny to say because if I had to choose a movie I think is the funniest of the three, my mind directs itself to “Kung Fu Panda 2.” Guess it goes to show how much I liked it.
When they announced a “Kung Fu Panda 4,” I did not think it was as odd of an idea as say, a “Toy Story 4” when they announced that. That said, when they announced a “Toy Story 4,” I was not prepared for how much I would end up enjoying it. Even though “Kung Fu Panda 3” is the weakest of the previous installments, I thought it did an okay job tying things up in a bow and sending off our characters with grace. But now, apparently, there is more material to unravel. If “Toy Story 4” could work, there is always a chance that “Kung Fu Panda 4” could work as well.
What did I think of this new “Kung Fu Panda” installment? Much like the “Toy Story” movies, I can claim “Kung Fu Panda” is 4 for 4. All the movies released in this franchise are good. Unfortunately, also like “Toy Story,” this fourth installment is the worst of the quadrilogy.
That said, there is one noticeable positive consistency between this film and its predecessors, and that is Jack Black as Po. Obviously, having done the amount of material he’s done in the past, Black has the Po character down to a bit of a science. When it comes to “celebrity” voice actors, I think Black is one of the most talented working today. He is dynamic, upbeat, and always in the moment. He spews every line like he knows there is no tomorrow. There is always a sense of passion with his delivery. As I will highlight in this review, this movie does not have the best storytelling or writing. But Black makes the most of what’s in front of him.
While the main storyline with Po definitely has its moments, one of the most noticeable problems of “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a subplot between the two dads. You have Po’s biological father, Li (Cranston) and his adoptive father, Mr. Ping (Hong) getting into an adventure of their own. Something I have come across a lot through this movie and my recent rewatch of the other three is that these films tend to highlight lessons and experience that can tie to parenting. This one is no exception. An enormous heartbeat that drives the subplot involving these two fathers are their worries for their son. While something like this may come off as relatable to an older audience, perhaps a select few adults who saw these movies as kids and passing the torch to the next generation, it is the weakest part of the film.
In fact, the balance of comedy and drama is not the only thing that seems to be missing in this film. You know who is also missing? The Furious Five. Now, the film does establish they are missing for a reason. They are off on other missions. But a huge part of the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise is seeing Po interact with these five warriors. Unfortunately, co-director Stephanie Stine said on a Discord Q&A they were not in the movie due to the costs of the original actors. I missed them throughout this film, they have great chemistry together.
Instead, the closest thing we get to a side warrior in this film is Awkwafina as Zhen. I will give this character one thing over the Furious Five. Unlike the Furious Five, this new character is not just named after its respective animal. Imagine if I had a kid one day and I named it “Human.” That’s a choice if there ever was one. Moving onto more important characteristics, I will also note that this character very much represents someone who has seen a lot through urban life. Yes, we have seen Gongmen City in “Kung Fu Panda 2,” but “Kung Fu Panda 4” introduces a different kind of city in Juniper City. The first connection I can immediately make with this city with something in our lives is New York, particularly Manhattan. Everyone’s on the move, it’s crowded, and the film goes on with the fitting notion that you cannot trust everyone.
As for Awkwafina’s performance in the film, I had similar feelings regarding it to how I felt watching her performance in “Migration.” I was pleasantly surprised with it. Unlike “Migration,” Awkwafina plays a much more central character this time around so we see much more of her, but I was delighted to have my expectations exceeded. Her performance is definitely enhanced by some okay writing and layered storytelling. Again, compared to the other installments, the story and writing is not as good. But Zhen’s character is one of the script’s highlights. I was kind of worried that she was going to be an annoying sidekick who would get my nerves real fast. And while she is far from the franchise’s best character, the way she is handled in this movie gets my approval.
As of now, “Kung Fu Panda” is a multigenerational franchise. There are a fair share of gen y and z individuals who likely found themselves invested in some crevice of the property at least once when they were kids. Some of those people probably know or have children of their own now that they can share this movie with. Additionally, they made a television series on Netflix called “The Dragon Knight” that some younger viewers likely watched, so the age range this movie is targeting is slightly diverse. As someone who was introduced to the first movie by watching it at the IMAX at eight years old, I have a bit of a nostalgic connection to this property. And a big selling point of this movie is the nostalgia factor. Not just having heroic faces like Po and Shifu back, but also having the franchise’s villains return as well.
…Kind of.
As mentioned earlier, this movie features the Chameleon (Davis), who can turn into other beings, including Po’s old enemies. This means we see the return of Tai Lung (McShane), even if it is some grade B variant of the character because this Tai Lung does not necessarily come with the same depth as the one we saw in the original film. Not that I’m saying this character’s depth is supposed to be exactly the same. The chameleon is the main antagonist this time around. This story is more about her. That said, I liked her motivation to copy as many kung fu masters’ abilities as she can. On paper, it sounds enticing. Voice-wise, Viola Davis was a decent pick to voice the character. She does a good job with the role.
That said, it is nice to see McShane come back to voice Tai Lung, especially when this movie features other characters from the franchise’s past, both heroic and villainous, and we don’t even get a line out of them. We also see Lord Shen and Kai, the villains of “2” and “3” respectively. But they don’t make much of a contribution to the final product. They’re just there. This movie runs at a tight 94 minutes, which is consistent with the previous installments, and the runtime of DreamWorks Animations in general. I know there appears to be a formula to making these movies, but I would not mind them expanding the runtime just a tad to get a little more out of the other movies’ villains, especially when we see as much of Tai Lung as we do. For all I know, their respective actors said “no,” were busy, or they were never in the plan to begin with. But this could have been the “Spider-Man: No Way Home” of the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise where we get an epic return of the franchise’s villains. Maybe that was the plan all along, it did not fall into place, and the crew had to work with what they had. They had to work with no Furious Five, and a couple of wasted villain cameos. At a certain point it could have been too little too late. Is the movie still watchable with the material we have? Sure. But it could be better.
Much like “Kung Fu Panda 3,” the humor seems to be mile a minute. Unfortunately, the jokes are not enough to save the movie. The problem with having quite a bit of jokes is that not all of them are going to hit. They are quite off and on. There are a fair few that land, but there are also many that don’t. The jokes that miss in this film are by no means the worst I have ever heard. I was never offended. They just didn’t work for me. Despite the movie’s flaws, tonal differences from its predecessors, and lack of Furious Five, I am still glad I saw it. I had a good time with what was given to me. But I will not deny that unlike the franchise’s previous weakest link, “Kung Fu Panda 3,” which I had an urge to watch a second time as soon as I left, I do not think “Kung Fu Panda 4” sits in the same camp. That said, give it a shot and see what you think. For all I know, it may be a better experience for you.
In the end, “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a fun movie, albeit a slightly forgettable one. This movie comes with the pros of its predecessors from a polished animation style, flashy action sequences, a great score composed Hans Zimmer and for the first time in this franchise, Steve Mazzaro. To top it off, the movie delivers a spectacular voice performance Jack Black. Having seen this movie though, I do not know if I want to see a fifth installment. That said, if another “Kung Fu Panda” gets made, I hope that they can bring back some of the dramatic flair of the original two movies. I do not mind humor. I am not saying “Kung Fu Panda” should not be funny. If anything, it is a franchise that lends itself to comedy. I just wish the jokes we got were better. Also, between a continuously likable protagonist with Po, an okay supporting character with Awkwafina’s Zhen, and a somewhat well realized, but noticeably gimmicky antagonist with the Chameleon, the characters serve the story sufficiently enough for it to be halfway decent. “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a chance to introduce the franchise to a new generation. But I think a better way would be to put on one of the first two movies. But that’s just me. I am going to give “Kung Fu Panda 4” a 6/10.
“Kung Fu Panda 4” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews, you’re in luck! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” 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 “Kung Fu Panda 4?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see the other “Kung Fu Panda” movies? Tell me your thoughts on them! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Dune Part Two” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Wonka, Interstellar), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Greatest Showman), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Austin Butler (Elvis, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Florence Pugh (Black Widow, Don’t Worry Darling), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy, Blade Runner 2049), Christopher Walken (Catch Me if You Can, The Deer Hunter), Léa Seydoux (Crimes of the Future, Spectre), Souheila Yacoub (Making of, Climax), Stellan Skarsgård (Mamma Mia!, Thor), Charlotte Rampling (Restless, 45 Years), and Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, No Country for Old Men). This film is a sequel to the 2021 science-fiction epic based on the novel by Frank Herbert. It follows Paul Atriedes as he journeys with the Fremen while waging war against House Harkonnen.
It is crazy to think how far we are in the 2020s. The decade is flying by. It kind of feels like yesterday when I saw “Dune” for the first time in theaters. By now, I have seen it a few times in theaters, once on 4K Blu-ray, and a couple times on TNT. Safe to say, this film has taken up a significant part of my screentime through the past two and a half years. And like many people, I happened to dig it. I do not think it is by any means the greatest science fiction film ever. If anything, the pacing could have been improved. The color palette could have been tinkered just a tad in select scenes. The film feels far less eventful in its third act than it does in the first two, which felt a bit odd but I was engaged nevertheless. Overall, I thought the first “Dune” was fantastic. It even made my top 10 best movies of 2021 and won Best Picture at the 4th Annual Jack Awards. It is a really good movie and it is deserving of its praise, even if there are science fiction films I would rather watch first.
In fact, of Denis Villeneuve’s filmography, I think it is one of his inferior outings. I liked “Prisoners” better. I liked “Arrival” better. I liked “Blade Runner 2049” better. He did those previous two movies back to back and both were equally sensational. Even with the slightly weaker “Dune” coming afterwards, I will not deny that Denis Villeneuve is not only on a hot streak, but is building a case to become the greatest science fiction director ever. As far as my excitement for “Dune Part Two” goes, it was astronomical. All the trailers were great. The footage looked beautiful. And knowing that the film was shot in IMAX’s specialized aspect ratio was a bonus. I thought the film was made for the theatrical experience, and I was also happy to know that more people were going to get the chance to see this movie the way this and the last film were meant to be seen.
Shoutout to HBO Max for nearly killing movie theaters in 2021.
But the million dollar question is this… How was the movie?
Well, to answer that question… I am going to start off by stating a potential problem the movie has. And that is that I will never be able to watch it for the first time again. I will likely never get to experience the sense of euphoria the way I did seeing this movie during my initial viewing.
For those who nag about me not getting around to certain film classics like “Rocky” or “12 Angry Men,” those who choose to say I am not a real movie fan, I could do the same thing to you when it comes to “Pulp Fiction” or “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but I am not going to. Instead, I am going to tell you I am somewhat jealous because you have the opportunity on your hands to watch those movies for the first time. When I hear someone is going to watch either of those films for the first time, my initial thought is, good for them! I hope they have a time of their life equal to what I myself experienced during my first viewing. I feel the same way about “Dune Part Two,” because while I immensely enjoyed the first “Dune,” not only does this sequel feel like it is on another level, but it is one of the most innovative additions to the sci-fi genre that comes to mind.
And I say this knowing that this is a follow-up that just so happens to be the second half of a first book of a popular series that has already been adapted to both film and TV in the past. Nevertheless, this feels like something new. There are times where I watched “Dune Part Two” and could not help but make a couple “Star Wars” analogies. Based on its technical mastery and power, this film must emit similar feelings to when people watched “Star Wars” for the first time in 1977. Meanwhile, as a sequel, “Dune Part Two” reminds me a bit of “The Empire Strikes Back.”
This is not only because “Dune Part Two” is a high quality second installment, but when it comes to the duel scenes, those are improved here. Not that the duel scenes in the first “Dune” were bad. If anything, they were terrific. That said, the choreography is much more spellbinding this time around. Additionally, I felt incredibly riveted by the story and characters, which made the film’s action scenes all the more exciting. With these two ideas in mind, I can tell you there is a duel towards the end of this film that is nothing short of jaw-dropping. The choreography is so fast that you would think that Sonic the Hedgehog oversaw it. Meanwhile, it is all in the middle of a key scene of the film where the emotions of our characters reach a tipping point. Where the story reaches its finest moments. Where we get some of the finest exchanges and performances in the history of science fiction. There is a moment towards the end of the movie, it is in the trailer, where Paul Atriedes yells, “SILENCE!” As far as pure line delivery goes, it is arguably the most chilling utterance of dialogue of the decade so far. The only other line in a movie that I can think of that came out in the 2020s that rivals this for me is the final line of “Oppenheimer.” Specifically, “I believe we did.”
Another reason why I found myself calling this the next “Empire Strikes Back” is because it goes all out on its antagonists. Stellan Skarsgård returns once again to slay his performance as Baron Harkonnen. Dave Bautista continues to prove himself as a fine wrestler-turned-actor as Glossu Rabban. In fact, not only does Bautista cement himself as a superior wrestler-turned-actor when compared to John Cena and Dwayne Johnson, he convinces me he could rack up one or two Oscar nominations if he keeps up the good work. I have seen Bautista in quite a few movies now. “Dune Part Two” is easily his greatest performance yet. Between the “Dune” movies and “Blade Runner 2049,” I would love to see Bautista continue to collaborate with Denis Villeneuve as much as possible because they tend to bring out the best in each other. Both of these characters are intimidating and well executed. Every moment they are on screen had me hooked.
But the real star of the show, antagonist-wise, is Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha. While I did not love “Elvis,” there is no denying that Butler was the best part of it. Much like that film, his performance just so happens to be one of the best elements of “Dune Part Two.” There is such a sinister nature to this character that is almost beyond reality but in the case of this universe, I immediately bought into it from scene one. Butler makes it believable. This is a guy who will literally kill his own people on a whim, perhaps delivering him a great deal of satisfaction as a result. Feyd-Rautha works so well because he emitted a feeling in me that many great villains should be able to emit. He becomes a character that I love to hate. I would not want to go bowling with this character, but as a villain, he is perfect. Not only that, but Butler sometimes feels unrecognizable. I have not seen him in a lot of movies, but based on what I have seen him in before, he has a flair to his performance here that comes off as individualistic.
That said, this is film is led by Timothée Chalamet. In today’s culture, it is easy to say the idea of “the movie star” is dead. But if there are sparks of that idea that are still alive, then Timothée Chalamet is certainly one of them. And boy is he a fine star. Not only is he young and good looking, not only is he bankable, but he also just so happens to have incredible range. Prior to this movie, he starred in “Wonka.” While I was not a fan of the movie, I thought he handled the material perfectly. He made the movie fun. He was expressive, upbeat, not to mention a mighty fine vocalist. Now we go to his next movie, “Dune Part Two,” where Chalamet’s character is caught in the middle of war, politics, and drama. And Chalamet’s ability to immerse himself into a world like this is impeccable. It feels weird, but one of Chalamet’s hidden talents is making such a scrawny dude come off as one of the most convincing leading figures in recent cinema. Sure, he’s not exactly short, but muscular is not the first word I’d use to describe Chalamet as a person.
I think “Dune Part Two” has an advantage for general audiences. While I cannot imagine this movie being for everyone, I can see this movie having a wider appeal than the first one. The movie not only has more action, but I would say the action is better this time around. I also think this film’s use of Stilgar makes for a great sidekick role of sorts. He almost comes off as a guy you would be sitting next to as you are watching the movie. Maybe he recommended it to you and is guiding you for the ride. Additionally, he has some of the most memorable lines. One of my favorite moments in “Dune Part Two” is when we see him believe Paul refuses to mention he is “the one.” There is a reason why I am seeing the words “As it is written” all over social media right now, it is Javier Bardem does a phenomenal job as Stilgar. He is perfectly cast and I cannot imagine anyone else filling in his shoes.
That said, if you enjoyed “Dune,” that does not necessarily imply you will fail to do the same in regards to “Dune Part Two.” I am proof of that. I really liked the first “Dune.” I gave it a positive review. But I think this sequel feels more adventurous. The score, somehow, is more memorable its predecessor. There is a theme that blares throughout the movie that I cannot get out of my head. It does a good job at expanding the lore and building the world. The acting is better. And as a pure experience, “Dune Part Two” is simply put, superior. One of my problems with the first “Dune” is that it very much feels like an intro guide to the world within. The movie has a three act structure, character development, and pretty much everything else you need to call it a movie. But one of its flaws is that it tends to feel more like a “how to survive Arrakis tutorial” than a journey through Arrakis. Now with this movie, it feels like we are taking the tools we acquired from the predecessor and putting them to the test.
Thankfully, as I write this review, “Dune Part Two” is still playing in theaters. And I must tell you, if you have not seen “Dune Part Two” in a theater yet, do yourself a favor and get your tickets as soon as you can, because this is one of those theatrical experiences you have to see to believe. This is easily one of the best times I ever had in a movie theater. I felt like sand was coming through the speakers the entire time. I thought I was in the middle of the desert. I was convinced the wind was flying in my face. If you told me that I was in Arrakis for two and a half hours, I would have believed you. But there is a reason, above all others, why you should see this movie on the big screen. Sandworms. Yes, there are sandworms in the last movie. But that’s not the point.
In this sequel, there are several minutes in this movie dedicated to Paul first experiencing what it is like to ride a sandworm for the first time. This is one of the most riveting, loudest, most visceral, exhilarating scenes yours truly has ever witnessed. This is one of those scenes that shows why movie theaters are built. It shows why we make big movies for the big screen. When I look back at this scene, it was almost as if I were alive a century or two ago, I had never seen a movie and someone from the distant future time-travelled to when I would exist. That person would then show me the power of what movies could be. This scene is perfection. It was well shot, packed with rambunctiously satisfying audio, and is nothing short of a perfect tech demo. But in both the background and the forefront, we are seeing our characters experience the world in front of them, learn more about each other, themselves, and their abilities. As an audience member, I am getting a great mix of thrills, expansion of lore, and details about certain characters.
The movie makes such a simple moment of learning and adapting look like the most intense thing in the history of the world. This is a scene I will never forget. Once again, a moment like this will show why I would be jealous to find out someone tells me they are about to watch this movie for the first time.
I thought the sandworm action could not get as electrifying as this… Until the second half of the movie happened, and somehow it equaled, if not surpassed the thrills I felt before. There is a scene, you’ll know it when you see it, where there is a shot showing the perspective from a sandworm’s eye. It is one of the most eye-popping, beautiful things I have ever seen on a screen. It’s quick, it’s raw, it’s massive. It is basically an encapsulation that describes the film itself. I was thrilled to no end.
Although going back to the original “Dune,” this brings up something noticeable about this sequel. There is a reason why it has “Part Two” in its title. Obviously, it is the second “Dune” movie, yes. Also, it is the second half of the original book. But this really is true to its name, a “Part Two.” There are several sequels you could watch and appreciate without having to see the original movie. Having watched “Dune Part Two,” this is one of those movies where I feel in order to fully appreciate what is in front of you, it would be worth going back and giving the first “Dune” a watch at some point. Either if you forgot what happened, or if you have never seen it before. Because there are a couple moments that would hit harder if you have that movie under your belt.
I have not seen “Dune Part Two” a second time just yet, but knowing the how lost for words I became by the time the movie was over, my second viewing is definitely around the corner. But I will never forget my first time. And this is where I bring in another “Star Wars” comparison. Much like that 1977 science fiction event, I will look back at “Dune Part Two” as a film that will define a generation. It has flaws. I kind of wish to know how people get off the sandworms once they are done with them. Some of the pacing feels inconsistent, but even in the less consistent moments the story is still exciting. And again, if you have not seen the first movie, it could theoretically lessen the impact of this one just a little. Other than that, there is not much else can I say except this is one of the best fiction movies of the decade, and you should see it as soon as you get a chance.
In the end, “Dune Part Two” fits the classic motto of a fine sequel. It goes bigger, and it is better. “Dune Part Two” is not only superior to its predecessor, but it is also the first great movie I have seen in 2024. It is still early in the year, but I needed this. After “Madame Web,” “Night Swim,” and “Argylle,” I truly needed a movie that I could deem somewhere on the level of a master class effort. And this is that movie. Going back to what I said earlier, Denis Villeneuve is on a roll. While I think Christopher Nolan is the superior director, he has a knack for filmmaking that is on the level of Christopher Nolan. I have not seen all of his work. I still need to watch “Enemy” and “Incendies.” But from what I have seen so far from Villeneuve, I can say that I have not seen a single bad movie from him. I can easily name a least favorite, and that would be “Sicario,” but that is still a movie where there are more positives than negatives for me. If Denis Villeneuve ends up making a third “Dune,” perhaps an adaptation of “Dune: Messiah” that is on the level of these last two movies, it would easily further the case of him being the greatest sci-fi director of all time. Villeneuve is that good at what he does. But it is not just him. You have Greig Fraser’s immensely beautiful cinematography. Hans Zimmer’s roaring score. An incredible ensemble of actors across the board. Timothée Chalamet, Stellan Skarsgård, Rebecca Ferguson, Austin Butler, and Dave Bautista just to name a few! I did not even get to Zendaya! She does a really good job as Chani in this film. Regarding the love connection between Chani and Paul, I bought into it immediately. It is still early, so it is hard to know how this movie will do next awards season. That said, not only could I see this movie getting nominated for Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, …I can totally see it winning. It is that brilliant. I am going to give “Dune Part Two” a 9/10.
“Dune Part Two” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! Be sure to look out for my thoughts on “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” 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 “Dune Part Two?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite scene in film history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Drive-Away Dolls” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Fosse/Verdon), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers) Beanie Feldstein (Booksmart, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising), Colman Domingo (Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, Rustin), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Bill Camp (The Queen’s Gambit, The Night of), and Matt Damon (Oppenheimer, The Martian). This film centers around two women who find themselves intertwined with crime-riddled shenanigans during their last minute road trip to Tallahassee, Florida.
So far, February has not been kind to yours truly. At least in terms of the movies we are getting. Shoutout to “Madame Web” for literally slapping me across the face, kicking me in the shin, and gouging out my eyeballs. Then again, it’s February. I should not be surprised that we are getting some underwhelming sacks of crap. But even over the past decade there is often at least one film in February that not only stands out, but ends up being a contender for best film of the year. In 2014 there was “The LEGO Movie.” In 2016 there was “Deadpool.” In 2019 there was “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World.” But in this instance, it seems that February is back to its usual shenanigans of destroying any chances of good times at the movies unless the movie you’re seeing came out in the previous year.
Well, “Dune Part Two” happened, but that’s another story for another time.
Speaking of “Dune Part Two,” I have to say of all the movies coming out in February this year, “Drive-Away Dolls” takes my second place position for my most anticipated title of the month. That is one spot below “Dune Part Two,” so at least I had something to look forward to the week before that one came out.
And thankfully, I would have to say “Drive-Away Dolls” is a delight. It contains two likable leads, a well-rounded supporting cast, and plenty of intriguing moments that are accentuated by good characters. Many of the film’s wins perhaps would not be possible if it were not for Ethan Coen’s vision. I have not seen all of the Coen Brothers’ movies, regardless if they are solo or together. That said, this one works because it successfully delivers a big bang in such a short runtime. The scenes fly by partially because of fast-paced dialogue and fairly tight editing. There are moments to breathe, but I will not deny that the movie gives quite a bit in just 84 minutes including credits.
Technically speaking, this is one of the most vibrant films I have watched in recent memory. This film is colorful, bright, and polished. One film I watched earlier this month was “Lisa Frankenstein,” and in that review I say the film “looks like something from another world.” When I look back at that movie and compare it to “Drive-Away Dolls,” they sometimes feel similar from a looks perspective. Both offer spectacular lighting that offers a bit of variety from scene to scene. Some of the costumes in both projects stand out. And there are moments where even the sets are easy on the eyes. There is a particular hotel in “Drive-Away Dolls” that not only looks exquisite, but beautifully fits the tone of the movie. Every moment we spend in this hotel with our two leads is worthwhile.
Speaking of the two leads, not only do Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan give solid performances that allow the duo to be as dynamic as possible, but I cannot see anyone else playing them. I have respect for both of these actresses. I have not had a ton of experience with Margaret Qualley, but I thought she shined like the sun in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” one of my favorite Quentin Tarantino flicks. I noticed some of her mannerisms from that movie seem to make their way into her role of Jamie as well. And while I would not specifically call “Drive-Away Dolls” a comedy per se, there are plenty of comedic elements. There is a natural goofiness, if that is even the correct term to use, to the main duo that is incredibly palpable. The movie does a good job at fleshing this duo out and authenticating them. They feel like they belong in a world like the one this movie presents.
And of course, Geraldine Viswanathan plays the other leading lady, Marian. Sticking with the comedy aspect, I think Viswanathan also does a good job at playing up some of the more comedic parts of the film. I should not be surprised though given her background. She was in one of my favorite comedies of 2018, “Blockers.” She was also a regular in TBS’s “Miracle Workers,” which is a fantastic show. Viswanathan is a natural when it comes to matching her personality with the movie’s tone.
But just because there are comedic moments in the film, does not mean the it refuses to get serious for a moment or two. Multiple tones intertwine beautifully and in no way feel inconsistent. That said, knowing what this movie is about, how the events progress, and the way everything unfolds, of course comedy is to be expected out of something like this. I do not want to give any spoilers as to certain things that happen in the movie as the marketing shrouds some things in secrecy and I was admittedly surprised when certain things come up, but this movie gets wild.
On top of Qualley and Viswanathan, you have an amazing group of supporting actors. Need any more proof this film scores big in the comedy department? Watch Beanie Feldstein play Sukie the cop. Perfect is a word I wish to use sparingly in life, but Feldstein’s performance comes close to perfection. Bill Camp as Curlie has a notable presence throughout the picture. And Matt Damon easily makes the most of his screen time. Similarly, I think I made the most of my time watching this film. I would give it a thumbs up.
In the end, “Drive-Away Dolls” is quite good! In fact, sometimes, it delivers a flair only a movie of its kind can bring to the table. Great acting. Great directing. Eye-popping aesthetics. What more could you want? “Drive-Away Dolls” is not the most surprising movie of all time, and when it comes to quality I have to admit there are better movies from the Coens, not to mention in general, but if you want a good movie that could make for a decent one time watch, “Drive-Away Dolls” is an entertaining ride. I am going to give “Drive-Away Dolls” a 7/10.
“Drive-Away Dolls” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you liked this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” and “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.” 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 “Drive-Away Dolls?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some good road trip movies that come to mind? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 