“The Beekeeper” is directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad, Fury) and stars Jason Statham (Fast X, The Meg), Emmy Raver-Lampman (Central Park, The Umbrella Academy), Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games, Five Nights at Freddie’s), Bobby Naderi (Black Summer, Bright), Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting, Speechless), Phylicia Rashad (Creed, The Cosby Show), and Jeremy Irons (The Lion King, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice). The film centers around a beekeeper and former operative who goes on a revenge quest after a woman falls for a phishing scam.
January and February are the two months where movies go to die. That is an objective fact. Do not get me wrong, there are some cases where you can release a movie in those months and have a hit. Look at movies like “Kung Fu Panda 3” or “Deadpool.” Both were well received and made a lot of money. When it comes to Jason Statham’s newest film, “The Beekeeper,” there is no way that I can see this film surpassing those at the box office. But much like those films, there is definitely a marketability behind this film that got me in the door. For one thing, it was not “Mean Girls,” which I do not plan on seeing. But in all seriousness, Jason Statham, kind of like Dwayne Johnson, has become one of Hollywood’s more likable action leads. Even if he does something that I would rather forget about like “Meg 2: The Trench,” I nevertheless like him. I just want to see him bust some heads.
Bust some heads? Should I say buzz? You know, buzz some heads?
…
Whatever, doesn’t matter.
Thankfully, we get plenty of head-busting in “The Beekeeper.”
This film is simple in its premise. It has some trademarks that action junkies may be used to seeing in other films, but that does not mean that this is a lackluster effort. If anything, it uses those trademarks decently. This film seems to follow a somewhat by the numbers revenge film formula, but the way it goes about it is entertaining. And a large part of that is because Jason Statham does a good job in the lead role.
Similarly, the same can be said for actors like Phylicia Rashad who plays the part of the victimized retired teacher, Eloise Park, with excellence. You also have Josh Hutcherson who arguably gives the best performance in the film as the antagonist, Derek Fanforth.
I have been used to seeing Hutcherson in certain roles over the years. In “The Polar Express” he voiced the Hero Boy. In the 2013 animated film “Epic,” he played a young Leafman named Nod. In “The Disaster Artist,” he plays Phillip, who ends up playing “Danny” in “The Room,” the film that movie is about. And of course he is well known for his time playing Peeta in “The Hunger Games.” In these roles, I often got a Mr. Nice Guy vibe from Hutcherson to some degree, even if his character had personal flaws. In this film, it is a much different role for Hutcherson, and I admire what they did with him. From the first scene, he is a moron with little to no remorse whatsoever. His character is almost what happens if you take someone with the looks and personality of John Mulaney but mixed it with that of a charismatic cult leader who has been involved in many a scandal.
Another notable positive that captivated me from scene one is the overall aesthetic of the film. The set design, such as that inside the UDG call center for example, is eye-popping. Everything leaps off the screen and it either makes me feel like I am either in the scene or I want to reach out and touch something in the scene. Everything is not only neatly patterned, but insanely colorful. The lighting in the film is quite nice. Technically speaking, I am not going to pretend this film is the next big thing. In fact, there are a few action films from the last ten years that I would point to that look a bit better and creatively more ambitious than this film makes itself out to be. That said, every trick this film goes for, it seems to nail. The camerawork is dazzling. The lighting is pristine. The editing is quickly paced and well spliced. Overall, I would give the film’s look a thumbs up.
Now there is clearly a lot that I enjoy about “The Beekeeper.” In fact, as far as January movies go, this is surprisingly good. That said, it is predictable and somewhat cliché. If you have seen certain action films in recent years, again, there are things that feel repetitive from those other movies. But that’s not the problem with “The Beekeeper” that seems to linger on my mind the most. That problem in particular is the ending. Now, I do not feel cheated. I am not going to say that this is the worst ending I have witnessed in the history of cinema. But in terms of recent film, I cannot think of one that is as abrupt and out of nowhere than what this film gives. It is not really that satisfying. Yes, the main issue of the film comes to a conclusion, but the film ever so quickly says goodbye to its audience. It does not give much time to breathe. It is kind of like “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” in a sense where the big climax hits its peak and just like that, the movie takes little time to wrap itself up. It feels spontaneous.
Going back to positives, “The Beekeeper” sort of reminds me of the original “John Wick” in a sense. Both films star charismatic men who kick tons of butt and take names, but the films offer similar vibes throughout their runtime. There is a dramatic flair, but with some occasional wit here and there. But the real reason why the two feel like a match made in Heaven is because they both have protagonists who you can watch and root for just for violently taking out tons of people left and right. I have lived entirely in an age of computers, I think phishers are the scum of the earth, and that is putting it nicely. As someone who briefly worked in tech at Staples and as someone who uses a computer every day, I love seeing a man go to town on people who think it is okay to take advantage of those who may not know as much about technology. Of course, the real me knows killing people is wrong. But I am watching this movie feeling as if many of the kills Jason Statham makes happen to be justified. Honestly, after watching the obnoxiously dreadful “Fast X” and the intolerably dull “Meg 2: The Trench,” it is great to see Jason Statham in something worth watching for the first time in awhile.
No, I did not watch “The Expendables 4” for those who ask. I am well aware of the negative reviews. That said, they did not steer me away from the movie. I did not watch the prior three.
In the end, “The Beekeeper” is not quite an A, but I am sure that a movie of this title would happily settle for a B. Jason Statham kills it in the lead role. The supporting cast, across the board, all do their best and deliver satisfying results to this thrilling ride. Does it have problems? Sure, it has a few. But as far as January movies go, this is a win. The film reminds me of other revenge flicks I liked in the past decade like “John Wick” and “Nobody.” It is hard to know if I will remember “The Beekeeper” to the same degree I to which remember those two films, but I had a good time with it nonetheless. I am going to give “The Beekeeper” a 7/10.
“The Beekeeper” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Driving Madeline.” I just had a chance to watch the movie over the weekend with a couple pals. I will share my thoughts soon. If you want to see this 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 Beekeeper?” What did you think about it? Or what is your favorite Jason Statham movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Migration” is directed by Benjamin Renner (Ernest & Clementine, The Big Bad Fox and Other Tales) and co-directed Guylo Homsy (Despicable Me, The Lorax). This movie stars Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, Eternals), Elizabeth Banks (Press Your Luck, The LEGO Movie), Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Awkwafina (Renfield, Raya and the Last Dragon), and Danny DeVito (My Cousin Vinny, Jumanji: The Next Level). The film is about a family of ducks who leave their habitat with the intention of migrating south, much to the resistance of their overprotective, closed-minded father.
Of the major animation studios out there today, the one that interests me the least is Illumination. “Despicable Me” never struck me as a franchise I tended to enjoy. “The Secret Life of Pets” has one average movie followed by a painfully awful sequel. “Sing” is the one notable saving grace the studio has delivered over the years. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is about as barely passable as movies can get. Granted, it is major step up from the 1993 live action adaptation of the iconic video game franchise, but when it comes to Illumination’s legacy, I have never found myself attached to it. Illumination is no Pixar, which has banger after banger after banger. Well, until they released “Elemental” this year which was one of the most disappointing animated features I have seen in my entire life. That said, this has been a great year for animation. For those who do not know, little preview behind the scenes at Scene Before, I am currently working on my top 10 best movies of the year, and I have not reviewed or seen everything I wanted to see yet, but a good portion of the titles contending for that list are animated.
I have good news and bad news. Let’s start with the bad news first, “Migration” is not going to join the top 10 best movies of the year for me. The good news is, “Migration” is nevertheless a decent movie. I was quite surprised with this film. I honestly thought the movie would not only be bad, but it would completely suck on every level. The marketing has been underwhelming, and ever since it started, I have not had the best impression of it. I remember when they dropped the first teaser back in the spring and half the trailer was just Illumination patting themselves on the back for all the movies they created so far. Now, I am a bit of a hypocrite because “The Boy and the Heron” just came out, which had a trailer close to the film’s release looking back at many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films. But one, I like most of those movies. And two, given the long time it took to make Miyazaki’s latest film a reality, the trailer in that campaign felt somewhat earned.
But you know what? I was pleasantly surprised. I did not pay to see this film, I ended up attending an early screening less than a week before the film came out and I had some laughs and smiles. The film does not reinvent the wheel and is far from the best animated film released this year. If anything, it is somewhat predictable and cliché, but as I said before on this blog, a movie can be predictable and done well. “Godzilla Minus One” has some predictable moments, but as long as they make sense or feel earned, I can forgive them for being there.
All around, the voice acting is decent. Not the best of the year, but when it comes to Illumination, it is collectively better than what we got in “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” Jack Black as Bowser is the glaring exception. Kumail Nanjiani does a good job as Mack (right center), the lead duck who happens to be stuck in his ways. Elizabeth Banks as Pam (right) is a standout amongst the cast. Banks traditionally has a lively, often upbeat voice that lends itself to roles like this one. As husband and wife, I bought into the duo immediately. Their respective voice actors were well paired.
One voice actor I was shockingly entranced by was Awkwafina. I have not seen everything Awkwafina was in throughout the past few years, but she has built a reputation of being particularly unlikable amongst some people. I never found her that way, but in the past few roles, she seems to be typecast and relying on previous schtick that is not quite old yet, but is getting there. That is why I am pleased to say that Awkwafina, despite my reservations from the trailer, is a fun standout in this film as Chump the pigeon. Her lines landed perfectly within the context of the film. She voiced the character well. And I felt that almost every scene she was in enhanced the picture in the long run. When it comes to Awkwafina, this is obviously nowhere near as memorable of a portrayal as the one she gave to Billi Wang in “The Farewell.” I will also say she is better in films like “Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” but I always like a good surprise.
And that is kind of what this movie is. I watched the trailer months back and absolutely hated it. Then I watched the movie a couple weeks ago and ended up liking it. I am not going to pretend this is Illumination’s best work. “Sing” is a step up from this, though this might be a tad better than “Sing 2.” But like those movies, “Migration” has its flaws.
The most prominent flaw for me, and this may strictly be based on personal preferences, I did not like how the movie portrayed its antagonist. The antagonist in this case is a restaurant chef. It kind of reminded me of another Illumination title, “The Secret Life of Pets 2,” where the villain basically overembellishes everything. I understand this is an animation, but there is a certain threshold that this movie crosses with the antagonist at certain points that I was not able to buy. I do not want to dive too deep into spoilers, but there are select moments where I saw the antagonist do certain things or act in certain ways that did not feel authentic.
However, like other Illumination titles, “Migration” has a nice polish in its animation. The color palette is pleasing to the eye. The film looks good. Much like the studio’s previous effort, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” the animation is one of the top tier qualities of the entire film. But also like “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “Migration” tends to suffer sometimes from its screenplay. In fairness, the screenplay makes sense and everything lines up. But it is full of cliches. Sometimes it feels safe and familiar. There are some creative decisions here and there, and there is one scene involving herons in the first act that was quite good. It was tense and had some laughs. But I am not going to remember this movie as one of the best of the year because it does very little to lean away from predictability. I think “Migration” is a good family movie. And if you are looking for something to do with the kiddos for the rest of their winter break, this makes for a fine time at the cinema.
In the end, “Migration” is one of the biggest surprises of the year for me. I think it is probably my second favorite title from Illumination. But then again, that is not saying much, because I have not seen every single film from them (I do not give a crap about “Despicable Me”) and when it comes to the films I have seen, their collective average when combining my final scores is not that great. In fact, the film is quite flawed at times. It is utterly nonsensical in terms of its overall story and how some scenes play out. Again, I know this is animated, sometimes there is a ceiling the film needs to avoid cracking. But the film has a couple of chuckle-worthy moments, likable characters, and it is nice to look at. There is not much more to write home about, and there are significantly better animated movies I have seen this year. I could name a bunch of them. but this film was a pleasant surprise. I am going to give “Migration” a 6/10.
“Migration” 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! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “Poor Things!” Also coming in January, it is that time yet again! I will be revealing my best and worst movies of 2023! If you want to see this 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 “Migration?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated movie of 2023? Right now it is kind of a tossup for me between “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” and “The First Slam Dunk.” Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Godzilla Minus One” is written and directed by Takashi Yamazaki (The Great War of Archimedes, Lupin III: The First) and stars Ryunosuke Kamiki (Summer Wars, Your Name) Minami Hamabe (Let Me Eat Your Pancreas, The Great War of Archimedes), Yuki Yamada (Strobe Edge, Tokyo Revengers), Munetaka Aoki (Rurouni Kenshin, The Roundup: No Way Out), Hidetaka Yoshioka (Rhapsody in August, Always: Sunset on Third Street), Sakura Ando (Shoplifters, Love Exposure), and Kuranosuke Sasaki (Hancho, Samurai Hustle). This film is set in postwar Japan when a new crisis emerges in the form of the giant monster, Godzilla.
Before going to see this movie, I found myself to be an appreciator of “Godzilla.” That said, my experience with the character has been mostly limited to the MonsterVerse movies. While there are some cool fights and dazzling displays of VFX from one movie to the next, there is a consistency bogging these movies down. Uninteresting human characters. It’s not that uncommon for movies of this kind to come out in this age and have that problem. As much as I liked the action in say “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” I would not be disappointed if I ever ended up forgetting about Mark Wahlberg’s character. The recent “Jurassic World” movies all have characters that may promise star power, but fall short on fleshing themselves out. I enjoy a good movie where people are running away from titans, but if you are going to have humans at the center of the film, you might as use them to their fullest potential. I should be able to give a crap as to whether the human characters are hurt, or heck, dead, in the next moment or two.
I saw the trailer for “Godzilla Minus One” a couple times in theaters, but I am not going to pretend it was the movie I was looking forward to the most this season. My recent encounters with the so-called king of the monsters have kept my expectations from rising to the beast’s magnificent height. But I saw the movie anyway. It had great reviews, a lot of acclaim, and plenty of chatter in my virtual circles. So I saw the movie.
I have three words for you. Oh my god.
Actually, you know what? Add a “zilla” to the end of that.
This might be the best movie of the year.
Just when I thought 2023 could not get any better when it comes to this year’s roster of movies, this movie stomps forward in the form of a gigantic surprise. And with my limited “Godzilla” experience, I can say this movie gets right what I usually see the other movies with him get right as well. First off, the effects look really good. Some of the best I have seen in recent memory. Any of scenes involving the monster’s power, intense action, and human despair all stand out. And I want to continue on with this last aspect for just a moment.
Of course, when you put Godzilla and terrified humans together, that should result in something intriguing on the surface. But in this film, not only does the basic idea of a collection of people fleeing from Godzilla keep my attention, but the film gets something right that the other films did not. Making me care about specific people in this situation.
Everyone in this film’s cast does a fantastic job in their individual roles. Additionally, I bought into and rooted for all the characters. They might be some of the best I have seen this year. “Godzilla Minus One” centers around a kamikaze pilot who fled from his duty. This plays heavily into some of the movie’s lessons and themes about war, survival, and how we neglect danger. If you look back at the original “Godzilla,” part of why that film continues to stay relevant today is because of its allegorical ties to nuclear war. The movie explicitly suggests that if nuclear war continues, an event akin to Godzilla may be imminent. “Godzilla Minus One” not only utilizes that idea once again in a different manner, but does so while creating a more attractive roster of characters. And I have nothing against the characters in the 1954 “Godzilla,” but these people resonated with me more.
The best side by side comparison I can use when it comes to describing “Godzilla Minus One” is “Star Wars.” As in, the 1977 original. Not only is this film exhilarating and exciting, packed with great characters, and shines as one of the year’s best-looking pictures, but much like Luke Skywalker, I found myself fully invested in the journey of this film’s protagonist, Kōichi Shikishima. Both of these mentioned characters have their major differences in personality and life experiences. But they progress through their own movies realizing similar arcs and journeys that result in giant impacts. There is a particular event that happens in this movie involving the main character and someone else that becomes a love interest that had me in such a state of shock and aghast that no other film experience this year has come even close to providing. Even with their personal flaws established from the film’s start, I got the sense that just about every human character somewhere around the film’s center is a genuinely good person. When that “particular event” goes down, it made me root for the main character even more, and it made me all the more attached and obsessed with his love interest. This character may be one of the most kindhearted, patient, caring souls on the face of the earth.
When we first see the love interest character, specifically Noriko Ōishi, we find out she rescued an orphan baby and now she is raising said child on her own. I have nothing but respect for this woman. She is in every sense of the word, a saint. I am 24 years old, if you were to ask me if I wanted to have a kid at this point in my life, my answer would probably be a “no.” I am still young and I cannot trust myself to raise one properly. But Noriko is honestly one of the most inspiring characters I have ever seen in the history of film. She is living through postwar times trying to survive all the while caring for an individual she probably never asked for in the first place. And she is not just phoning it in, she is a phenomenal motherly figure.
What separates this film from the other “Godzilla” movies I have seen is that it treats its titular titan exactly how he is often described, a fearsome monster. This is not to say he was never once at least slightly intimidating in the other titles I have seen, but you could almost make an argument that “Godzilla Minus One” is more of a horror flick than something along the lines of action and adventure. And part of that has to do with how Godzilla not only looks like pure nightmare fuel, but his actions in the film as well. If I were watching this movie at 7 years old, my skin would crawl to the floor. The creature in the context of the film is a word I was genuinely not expecting to use. Frightening. And I did not sense a single ounce of remorse in the titan’s actions. Everything sinister he did, he did on purpose. And if he had it his way, he would do those things three times over. Sure, watching Godzilla destroy things is cool. But that is only enhanced by the humans at the center of it all who did not ask for any of this to happen. It’s just there. Every time he does something destructive, I’m panicking in the back of my mind. Anybody remember “Halloween Kills” and how cool it was to see Michael Myers go to town on people? Here’s the thing about that movie, the characters are honestly forgettable. I don’t care if Michael Myers chops them up to pieces and plays with their body parts for fun. Because I was never attached to those people. As soon as most of this movie’s characters are introduced, I am fully engaged and I never want to let go of my attachment to them.
If there are any flaws with this movie, they do not bother me specifically. But I should note that as I watched the movie, there are a couple things that made for a slightly predictable structure. Although I say that in full appreciation of how the movie lays everything out in its narrative. You can be predictable and still be great. In this film’s case, the predictable moments work because they feel earned. As a matter of fact, every moment in this movie, regardless of predictability, feels earned, and that is because time is given to establish the characters. Their struggles. Their aspirations. Their everyday lives. When certain things happen later in the movie to these characters, it makes my initial attachment to them worthwhile. I was not expecting a Shakespeare-level screenplay out of a movie with a giant atomic monster, but ladies and gentlemen, we have one. “Godzilla Minus One” is doing very well in the United States. Yes it is based on a popular property, but it certainly helps that the property is handled with care and respect.
In the end, this movie took me from being a “Godzilla” appreciator to a “Godzilla” fan. This film made me not only excited to see what could be done with “Godzilla” next, but it intrigues me to look back at a ton of the “Godzilla” material I have not seen. In fact, you may remember I used the 1954 “Godzilla” to set an example of something in this review. Fun fact, I actually ended up watching that film for the first time because of how much of an impact this movie had on me. Similarly, I am quite curious as to what Takashi Yamazaki has up his sleeves next. Because as far as I am concerned, this is god-tier writing and equally as incredible directing. He aces this picture like a boss. Every actor in this film is admirable and brings out the best in their character. This movie’s interpretation of “Godzilla” is one of the most horrifying sights I have ever come across. The climax of this film is captivating. The score is booming. And there is a sense of awe and wonder I got out of this film I was not expecting. I ended up crying at the end because of how great the final scene was. I genuinely felt like I was 7 years old and just discovering some of my favorite films like “Star Wars.” This film was a ride like no other, delivering a narrative that makes many others from this year look utterly inferior. It is amazing what four years can do. When I watched “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” back in 2019, I gave it a 1/10 because of bad characters, headache-inducing scenes, and the absolute lack of satisfaction I felt as soon as the movie was over. Little did I know what we would get in 2023 from Japan. I am going to give “Godzilla Minus One” a 10/10!
“Godzilla Minus One” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Ferrari.” The film is not in theaters yet, but I did manage to catch a screening of it earlier this month. Also, be sure to look out for my reviews for “The Boy and the Heron,” “Dream Scenario,” “Maestro,” “Wonka,” “Migration,” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” 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 Minus One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Godzilla” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Napoleon” is directed by Ridley Scott (The Last Duel, House of Gucci) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Joker), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Tahar Rahim (A Prophet, The Mauritanian), and Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding, An Ideal Husband). This film is about the rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, diving into many aspects that define the individual, in addition to his relationship with his wife, Josephine.
I was looking forward to “Napoleon” as I am a fan of Ridley Scott. The trailers undoubtedly looked epic and it delivered a similar vibe to another historical epic Scott mastered in his time of making it, “Gladiator.” And of course, with a prominent, talented thespian like Joaquin Phoenix at the forefront, I thought we could be in for something special. Unfortunately, when the reviews started coming out for this film, that is when I decided to lower my expectations, as it seemed to stray away from historical accuracy. But as someone who looks for entertainment in his movies, I can live with a little bending of history as long as you can make a good movie out of it so I tried not to get too concerned. Unfortunately, I walked out of “Napoleon” almost half asleep. And that is really weird to say because one of the positives I have about this movie is the immersive sound mix. It is an enormous aid during the battle scenes. As much as I love Ridley Scott, I think this film is quite a dud.
This film feels rushed, and yet, it somehow managed to bore me with a two and a half hour runtime. I can sit through a two and a half hour movie. Some of my favorite movies are longer than that. But this was painful. I think the one redeeming quality of this movie was watching the uncomfortable relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. But when I say that is a redeeming quality, I must also note that it is like watching a car crash at times. There are certain moments between these two that are intriguing, but there are others where the intrigue comes in, but in a such a haphazard manner that I would feel as if I am doing myself a disservice if I look away. Now to be fair, the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby is admirable in regards to how their characters are written and performed.
As we age, there is a tendency that people define themselves over who they surround themselves with, their legacy, how things will be carried on after they’re gone. And when it comes to displaying Napoleon’s desire to keep things afloat and continue his legacy to the next generation, these traits are emitted with passion on Joaquin Phoenix’s part. My favorite parts of the movie, or at least the ones I cannot stop thinking about, all involve Napoleon’s burning desire to have a child. I think the way the movie handles this segment of the story is surprisingly decent, even if it does get a little over the top.
Speaking of over the top, that is one of my biggest negatives of the film. Phoenix and Kirby shine in their individual roles, but there are plenty of other individuals on screen, and their acting ability has me questioning whether I was actually watching something from a director as renowned as Scott. There are select lines from certain characters that feel like they came out of a high school TV production class. Sometimes those lines are delivered with passion, but they are delivered with a certain passion that would probably be best used in an animation or a comedy as opposed to a somewhat grounded drama. In fact, the movie sort of crosses a line at times into comedy that I have no idea if it was actually intended. There are select scenes that play out in a much funnier manner than I would have imagined them. It almost spirals into a “so bad it’s good” territory, which is a phrase I was not expecting to use when reviewing a Ridley Scott movie.
Even with my issues, I must admit, “Napoleon,” like many of Ridley Scott’s films, is easy on the eyes. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, like usual, is beautiful, even if some of the shots feel a tad rushed in the final edit. The locations are excellent, fit their scenes, and bring life to the production. The production design from one of Scott’s regulars, Arthur Max, is outstanding. The costumes have notable detail. The film is a crisp step back in time. But just because “Napoleon” nails its style, does not mean the same can be said for its substance.
I was bored immensely with the film’s pacing, its story. Everything. There are several moments where I kept asking myself if the movie was over. And the worst part is knowing that this is not a complete product. This is just a lackluster Cliffs Notes edition of a larger tale, because it has been revealed that this production will have a four hour extended version. I kind of get why you would not want to release a four hour movie in theaters, but I would sit through one if I had the time if it meant the pace and story would bring more appeal. Here, it kind of feels rushed and it lacking in engagement.
When it comes to my time studying history, I was off and on as a student. In my opinion, “Napoleon” feels like reading a history textbook. And I do not use that comparison lightly. Basically this whole movie is one giant chapter or unit that I have to go through, and I am passively taking it all in to the best of my ability due to of my lack of interest. I cannot tell you everything that happened in the movie, so if you were to hand me a quiz I would probably not do so hot. And much like reading a textbook, I failed to find any entertainment value in what was in front of me. If I wanted Ridley Scott to entertain me with a slice of history, I will just go back and watch “Gladiator.” I will go back and watch “The Last Duel.” “Napoleon” just doesn’t do it for me. And I think a big part of it is because of how much the movie dives into. It feels like we are hopping from one place in time to another lickety split. With a movie like “The Last Duel,” one of my new favorites from Ridley Scott, there is a central idea the characters have to deal with that remains consistent. In fact, we see it play out a few times in different ways, which makes for a compelling narrative. The film is digestible despite being drawn out. So much happens in “Napoleon” that I would almost argue you need a longer runtime to actually appreciate it. Maybe this would be a good miniseries, but I think the spectacle aspect that is best witnessed in a cinema is probably what could have kept it from going in that direction. And if you are asking, no, I do not have plans to check out the extended cut of this movie. I have better things to do with my time.
In the end, “Napoleon” is a massive disappointment. This movie takes one of the most talked about historical figures of all time and wastes him in a dull, uninteresting, downtrodden mess that nearly put me to sleep. It is much less a story than it is a series of events that failed to capture my interest. The only real shining spot of the film are the performances given by Phoenix and Kirby as Napoleon and Josephine respectively. In fact, part of me wanted to see more of the Josephine character, I feel like she at times offered a more compelling presence than Napoleon did. I have seen movies like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” handle Napoleon Bonaparte from a much more comedic angle. Somehow I continue to think about those attempts at showcasing the character in a much more positive light than I do with this two and a half hour historical so-called “epic.” Yes, it’s technically glorious. You know what was also technically glorious? “Jupiter Ascending!” But you don’t see me raving about the characters of that movie every now and again. I am going to give “Napoleon” a 4/10.
“Napoleon” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of my Ridley Scott movie reviews, I just did a themed month called “Ridley Scottober” where I discuss four Ridley Scott films in depth. That said, feel free to check out my reviews for “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” “All the Money in the World,” and “Blade Runner.” My next review is going to be for “Godzilla Minus One,” and boy, I cannot wait to share this one with you all. But, I am going to have to wait. Because my next post is going to be an update on Blu-ray Movie Collection! Stay tuned! If you want to see this, 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 “Napoleon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a historical figure? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Marvels” is directed by Nia DaCosta (Little Woods, Candyman) and stars Brie Larson (Room, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Teyonah Parris (If Beale Street Could Talk, Mad Men) Iman Vellani, Zawe Ashton (Velvet Buzzsaw, The Handmaid’s Tale), Gary Lewis (Joyeux Noël, Gangs of New York), Park Seo-joon (Kill Me, Heal Me, She was Pretty), Zenobia Shroff (The Big Sick, Soul), Mohan Kapur (Sadak 2, Hostages), Saagar Shaikh (Unfair & Ugly, Average Joe), and Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, The Incredibles). This film features three superheroines who must band together to save the universe while dealing with an entanglement in their powers.
If you told me a month after “Captain Marvel” came out that we would be getting a sequel within the next few years, I would have believed you. In addition to being one of the most prominent comic book movies with a female lead, serving an underrepresented demographic, the film did gangbusters at the box office, grossing over a billion dollars. Unfortunately, if you ask me, I honestly think “Captain Marvel” is one of the weakest of the MCU films, and I gave it a 4/10 in my original review. Looking back at the film, it shines whenever Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson share the screen together. But there are many other instances where it falters. I thought the way Larson’s character was directed and written could have been better. I thought the hero’s stoic nature made her less palatable than she could have been. And I hate saying that because when I look back at Larson’s previous work like “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and “Room,” she has legit acting chops. And for all I know, she fulfilled the requirements of her role, but she was not given her finest work here. The villain is somewhat forgettable. The movie’s structure is a bit of a choice. Goose the Cat got on my nerves by the end of the film, and speaking of that, the film, which serves as a prequel to events that happen later in the MCU, reveals a certain detail about Nick Fury. Given the greater context of the MCU, I really hate how they went about exposing this detail. It felt out of left field and borderline cringeworthy.
But since “Captain Marvel” came out, we saw the rise of Disney+, which has brought shows like “WandaVision” and “Ms. Marvel” to the small screen. The former show features a prominent story from Monica Rambeau, the daughter of Maria Rambeau who is notably featured in “Captain Marvel.” Meanwhile Ms. Marvel introduces the new hyperactive, young, titular character to the ongoing universe. Thankfully, when it comes to the Marvel Disney+ series this film chooses to interlink, it chooses my two absolute favorites. Honestly, all the rest, minus select episodes of “What If…?” pale in comparison. But if you want my two cents, this brings up my first, and most obvious critique when it comes to “The Marvels.” If you have not seen “Captain Marvel,” then maybe you’ll be okay. You can get a sense of who Captain Marvel, AKA Carol Danvers, is in the snap of a finger. The movie does an okay job interjecting the two other leads, but I think you are easily going to appreciate them more if you tune into the Disney+ shows. If you read some of my more recent MCU movie reviews, my most prominent critique is that this whole cinematic universe is increasingly feeling like homework. “Doctor Strange in the Multiverese of Madness” sometimes feels like a commercial for “WandaVision” a year after its release. There is a certain connection a couple characters have between “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” that is established in The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special.” The impact of that feels lessened knowing it comes from something comparatively smaller and timely. That said, the movie is still a banger, you should watch it.
“The Marvels” is honestly diving into a territory where the movies are taking advantage of as much Disney+ material as it can muster. If you did not see “WandaVision,” the impact of this movie would be lessened. If you did not see “Ms. Marvel,” I think there is still a lot to enjoy with the character, but maybe the impact would not be there as much. And with all these characters coming together in one picture, this is kind of what I feared would happen with the MCU. We would get to a point where the movies and Disney+ shows would be totally linked to a point where you almost cannot have one without the other. I enjoy the MCU, but this film reminds me of how much more fun this universe was when it was just about the next big event picture, and now with the TV shows, it comes off as a commodity to the point where there is too much. “The Marvels,” despite my enjoyment of it, feels like a mish mash. There is so much going on in such a short runtime.
But what saves the film in such a seismic manner just so happens to be the three leads themselves. Regardless of how much knowledge you had about any of them prior to watching this movie, I am willing to bet that if you watch this movie by itself as an introduction to these three characters, you will walk out having liked them. If anything, I think this film gives a much more likable portrayal of Captain Marvel than what we got in her 2019 film. She has a wider range of emotions while also maintaining her space goddess mentality she carried throughout her previous appearances. When it comes to Monica Rambeau, I think if I had to name the weakest character in the trio, it would be her. She appears to be given the least to do amongst the three, but she has a number of decent lines and standout moments on screen. Easily my favorite of the trio is Ms. Marvel, AKA Kamala Khan. A lot of that has to do with the infinite charm emitted by young actress Iman Vellani. Between the “Ms. Marvel” show and now this brand new movie, Vellani is perfectly cast in Ms. Marvel’s shoes. Vellani herself is a massive Marvel fangirl, and she very much interjects that into the personality of the Ms. Marvel character. If anything, Vellani reminds me of myself a little bit. She is dynamic, often upbeat, and often carries a smile even when the situation may seem dire. She spends a ton of the movie looking up to Captain Marvel as an idol and when she sees her in person, she almost comes off as if she is getting too close.
If this movie proves anything, it is that of the three main heroes in the trio, Ms. Marvel is easily the most fun to watch, and Marvel should honestly utilize Vellani’s talents as much as they can. She clearly enjoys playing the character. A lot of the stuff she is doing stands out amongst Marvel’s recent fare. And she is practically a scene stealer. Additionally, I love her family, particularly her parents. Both have tons of personality. For the screentime they have in this movie, they are used to their maximum potential.
Unfortunately though, the movie is not all rainbows and unicorns. In addition to the whole Marvel becoming homework thing that seems to increase in every other project, there is a scene in this film that feels entirely out of place. “The Marvels” is undoubtedly lighthearted. Especially when compared to other Marvel projects like “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” and “Eternals.” But there is a scene in this film that feels too light to the point where it feels like it is coming out of a goofy Disney animation. Without giving too much away, the main trio ends up going to a planet where we find out the inhabitants all communicate through song. The way this is done is about as close to a bad “SpongeBob SquarePants” episode that the MCU has gotten in its decade and a half of existing. I have spent much of this movie with my mouth open. Either because I was eating popcorn or laughing. I had my mouth open during this scene as well, but not for good reason. I was perplexed as to what was going on, if I was dreaming, and if this was even the same movie I was just watching moments earlier.
There is also another scene that is not as bad, but is still a lesser moment of the film that somewhat failed to emit the effect it was probably going for, and it involves a ton of cats. Now maybe if I was a cat person I would feel differently about this scene. Heck, I’m not even a dog person. I’m barely a people person. But as this scene was happening, my brain kind of turned itself off and back on again. I knew what was happening, but I was not able to get any reaction out of it. If I had to name a low point of the Marvels, particularly a low point that is still high enough to keep me from ripping my ears off my face, it would be the chaotic flerken scene. It might be a hit with some audiences, but it was not for me.
The beauty of the best Marvel movies is that even when there may be a ton of setup for what’s to come, the product in front of you feels like a delicious main course. Don’t get me wrong, “The Marvels” was enjoyable, but it feels like an overreliance of what came before while also setting up so much for what could come next. When I said this movie is so much going on in such a short runtime, I was not kidding. I do not mind a short movie, I also do not mind a long movie. But a movie works best when it evenly distributes its material for a best possible runtime that can keep me engaged. “The Marvels” kept me engaged the entire time, but it did so while going at a pace that felt almost equal to a disposable TikTok video.
When it comes to Marvel villains, they are all over the place by now. After all, with so many movies out at this point, you are going to have your high and low moments. When it comes to the Marvel villain rankings for me, this film’s antagonist, Dar-Benn, is around the middle to low tier. I thought Zawe Ashton does a decent job as the character. But if I have to pinpoint any noticeable flaws, I would say that some of her lines are cliche. She does not really do much to stand out similar to say Marvel’s last two villains, specifically Kang the Conqueror and the High Evolutionary. Both villains do a great job at making their presence known or establishing clear motivations that make them the character in the film I love to hate the most. Dar-Benn has her moments. She is fun to watch in action. The way they utilize a couple plot devices with this character is effective. To call her cookie cutter would be a tiny stretch, but she is probably going to be one of the MCU’s more forgettable villains we have gotten over the years. She is not offensive, but to call her anything beyond serviceable would be generous.
If Marvel, and the comic book movie sub-genre in general for that matter, has lacked something for many years, it is a set of prominent female-led films that are really good. Sure, the 2017 “Wonder Woman” movie was fantastic, and for some time, my favorite film in the DCEU. Yes, I enjoyed “Black Widow” and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” And yes, “Captain Marvel” made over a billion dollars, but I think this film does a better job at showcasing women superheroes in the forefront than that movie did. And that is highlighted by something I felt was lacking in “Captain Marvel,” emotion. Throughout my watch of “The Marvels,” I came to the conclusion that I was having a much better experience watching the leads. No disrespect to Samuel L. Jackson, I would honestly rather see Brie Larson next to Teyonah Parris and Iman Vellani for a bit longer if I could. And when it comes to the idea of emotion, Captain Marvel is more dynamic this time around than in her first MCU appearance. Additionally, the two supporting heroes add quite a bit to the table to keep me engaged. I think the movie, despite its flaws, works because it takes these three heroes and does a great job at fleshing them out. It dives heavily into their strengths, their weaknesses, their personalities. And that is something I kind of wanted to see out of Captain Marvel in her first outing in the MCU. Sure, we learn a bit about her backstory there, but I was more compelled by how her story is laid out in this film. And the material, whether it is better or worse than “Captain Marvel” honestly lends to a superior performance from Brie Larson herself. Maybe it is because she’s already played the character so she has had to time to adjust to the role, but I think she is better here than she was in “Captain Marvel.”
Part of what makes these three leads click is not just their interactions and how the movie utilizes their chemistry, which is as close to perfect as it can get to be honest. But the film’s driving concept for these three heroes lends itself to pure fun. I sometimes find myself fascinated with a “Freaky Friday”-esque concept. In the case of “The Marvels,” the characters do not quite switch bodies, but more or less switch places. In addition to being a clever idea, it also lends itself to a fun montage with the Beastie Boys song “Intergalactic” playing in the background.
In the end, “The Marvels” is sort of all over the place. But the positives heavily outweigh the negatives when I break everything down. If you asked me if I were to watch this movie sometime in the next year or so, I would not be opposed to it. I do not think it is the best superhero movie this year. If anything, it is one of the weaker ones, but I think it is still as entertaining as popcorn movies can get. It is hilarious, has great characters, and comes with a concept that is… (sigh) marvelously done. I think the film’s biggest weakness comes from the notion that the MCU itself has gotten so big. And personally, I would not have as much of a problem with that if Disney+ did not exist, but now that Marvel movies and TV shows are interlinked, I think it is only leading to extended convolution in the franchise. And while I may watch just about everything the franchise has to offer, the film relies on a bit that comes before it, and that could be a red flag for general audiences or less informed consumers. There are a couple gags that do not work, and I do think the villain is alright at best, but the terrific trio, and that is putting it lightly, of superheroines make this latest comic book movie worth the watch. I am going to give “The Marvels” a generously high 6/10.
I almost want to give two scores for “The Marvels.” Because if we are going for a pure fun factor, this movie would probably be an easy 7/10, but I also have to recognize that this movie works for me probably because I was exposed to much of what the MCU has to offer. The film sometimes relies on a couple movies and TV shows in its marketing and I think if you did not see those, this would be slightly harder to recommend. That said, I think you could still have a decent time with the movie. But there are a lot of other titles in the MCU that would be a better gateway to everything else. I took my dad to see this film, and while he missed out on “The Marvels,” he still liked what he saw. He did not have anything initially negative to say about it. Having talked with him since, we came to an agreement that this is not Marvel’s best work, but we both had a fun time.
“The Marvels” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Disney’s latest animated film, “Wish!” The film just hit theaters last week, and I will have my thoughts on it soon! Also coming soon, I will have reviews coming for “Next Goal Wins,” “The Holdovers,” and “Napoleon!” 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 Marvels?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Captain Marvel?” What about “WandaVision?” Did you check out “Ms. Marvel?” Let me know about your thoughts on those entries to the MCU! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Freelance” is directed by Pierre Morel (Peppermint, Taken) and stars John Cena (The Suicide Squad, Blockers), Alison Brie (BoJack Horseman, The LEGO Movie), Juan Pablo Raba (Peppermint, Narcos), and Christian Slater (Inside Job, Archer). This film is about an ex-special forces operative who takes a job to protect a journalist tasked with interviewing a dictator. When a coup happens during the assignment, the three must defend themselves all the while navigating the jungle for their own survival.
To say I was looking forward to “Freelance” would be like saying I am looking forward to going to the DMV. Sure, I like making sure I am able to drive. But all the dirty work within that is not that appealing. In the same way, I enjoy John Cena’s work… Well, enjoy is a strong word. I am not exactly thrilled with what he did on TBS’s “Wipeout,” but still. As I look at the poster for “Freelance,” it has the look of a straight to DVD action flick released exclusively at Walmart that is probably not going to be discussed two years from its official release. There is something about it, the more I look at it, that increasingly turns me off. Even the tagline sounds over the top. “Retirement doesn’t suit him.” Okay, then. I wish the advertising suited my tastes but this goes to show why we cannot have nice things. It almost has the look and feel of a lifeless parody movie. It’s too bright to be serious, but it tries way too hard to make me laugh, and fails miserably. Once again, John Cena is becoming a respectable star in both film and television. That said, the greatest thespian, he is not. He is basically like Dwayne Johnson, another wrestler turned actor. He has personality and oozes charisma in various roles, but he does not always escape into the role at hand. “Blockers” is a halfway decent example. John Cena is really funny in the movie. Honestly, he stands out in the movie. I really like his character. But he showcases a particular, consistent stiffness as the lead role. In “F9: The Fast Saga,” which I almost forgot he was in… Nice, right? He was one of the weaker talents on screen. He was not convincing as an antagonist, and he was equally, if not more unconvincing, as Dom’s brother. But to be fair on the latter, that’s probably more of a casting issue than a performance issue.
That said, he is not all bad. If you take a supporting role of his, like the one he had in “Bumblebee,” he can do okay with the small amount of material given to him. He may not be giving an Oscar-worthy performance, but he has the ability to stand out. He was quite funny and had perhaps the best executed line in the entire film. That said, with his recent rise as the character of Peacemaker in the DCEU I thought he was turning things around. Not only did he have plenty of material to work with, but he gave a standout performance where I saw less of John Cena the personality and more of John Cena the actor. James Gunn even said that when it comes to improv, he kept more of it from John Cena than any other actor in his previous projects.
And this is why I have to say after seeing John Cena’s amazing efforts in DC’s “The Suicide Squad” and “Peacemaker,” he unfortunately takes a downward spiral in “Freelance.”
John Cena plays Mason Pettits, who had dreams of being in the military, only to have them shattered by an injury, leading him to become a lawyer instead. Now, I know being a lawyer can be a desirable gig to a number of people, but I think the movie does an okay job on the surface of trying to make Mason likable in the first couple of minutes by having his absolute dream go by the wayside, bringing him to a lowest low. But then, they introduce the fact that he is a father, has a wife who doesn’t always seem to be on the best terms with him, and this whole dynamic did not work for me. He and Alice Eve have zero chemistry together. I must add, I know that not all dads are perfect, but there is a scene early on in the film where we see Mason with his kids that was definitely supposed to come off as funny, but came off as a notion that Mason is a terrible father. He doesn’t come off like he is trying his best to be a supportive, attentive parent. The idiocy that this guy shows around his children is unfunny. Additionally, it convinces me that he should have never even procreated in the first place. The personality of John Cena’s character, both as a father, and within the context of his job, reminded me of the characters of “Wild Hogs,” a bunch of insufferable morons who want more in life, but are not likable enough for me to respect them wanting more. He comes off more as a brainless jerk than anything else. And how can you be miserable when you are married to a character played by Alice Eve? Now I have seen everything.
If there is one positive in the movie, while the film itself delivers an unfathomable injustice of a first impression, I like how they shot the film’s early moments. Much of the beginning of the film was done from a first-person perspective, which I thought was kind of creative, and almost immersive. It kind of reminded me of a fun video game. As bad as everything else in the movie is, I will admire the film for at least having the ingredients, albeit very few, that could go into making the unfathomable injustice of a first impression better than it is. First impressions are the impressions in life that matter the most regardless of the situation. So while “Freelance” did not win me over, I admire the movie’s efforts in what it was trying to do. However, there are so many things that are wrong with the movie that I cannot help but cringe just at the thought of it. The movie starts off as a story where one man is getting a second shot at a dream. It is kind of borderline action-packed, adventurous. But it also is a comedy. Meshing genres together is nothing new, but usually there is a sense of consistency when the meshing is done right. The way “Freelance” uses multiple genres is the opposite. It almost does not know what kind of movie it wants to be. And the worst part, when it comes to meshing adventure, comedy, action, and whatever other sprinkle of a genre it chooses to emulate, it does all of them poorly. I don’t mind mixed genres as long as they’re done well. If they were done well, we would have a different story on our hands. Look at “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” “Freelance” does not go as deep as that. But as an adventure, there are no thrills. As a comedy, there are no laughs. As an action flick, it misses the mark.
And the fact that this film misses the mark as an action flick is really sad, because it is directed by Pierre Morel, who also directed “Taken.” I love “Taken.” It is one of Liam Neeson’s best films. It is not surprising to know that almost every other film he has done since often tends to be compared to “Taken.” The action is great. The premise is simple, but perfect. The father-daughter relationship won me over. And that is the irony. We go from a movie like “Taken,” which even with its showcasing of notable violence, is ultimately about a father who will do anything to save his daughter. He is practically the father of the year. Granted, when it comes to “Taken” it also helps having decent writers like Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. Now several years later, we get “Freelance.” A movie starring John Cena as a father who appears to neglect important details about his kids. And if you are curious about the writer for “Freelance,” that would happen to be Jacob Lentz. He has plenty of experience in this industry. He wrote for “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for a long time, he produced a series in 2017 called “Animal Nation with Anthony Anderson.” He did a number of things. But the last writing credit he has, at least according to IMDb, is in 2012 when he did the “2012 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.” If that is true, it kind of shows here. Granted, with all this time in between, it could mean he had time to brainstorm whatever he is going to do next. But if I were brainstorming, I would have brainstormed to delete the script and never hand it out to anybody. But what do I know?
That said, I do want to be careful with what I just said. Because I recognize how hard it is to make a movie. But with a repeated process, the journey does become a bit simpler. Recognizing Jacob Lentz’s past credits, I should note that in his case, this is, unsurprisingly, his first feature film script. I respect how Lentz is making a transition from one part of the industry to another. He is trying to diversify a bit. But I think it is clear that when it comes to feature films, his skills have not quite blossomed. I do not know what his reputation is on the TV side, but I am hoping that it is better than what this movie turned out to be.
The best way I can describe “Freelance” is to say that it is this year’s “Red Notice.” When it comes to star power, it is not quite as big, but it is evident. Look at John Cena! Look at Alison Brie! Both of them are respectable, notable names given their resumes! “Freelance,” much like “Red Notice” did with Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, and Gal Gadot, ended up taking significant leads who ooze personality to the tenth degree and crush them like bugs. This movie took likable gems of people and sucked out their souls. They say I cannot see John Cena. In this case, all I see is crap.
And while I happen to know John Cena and Alison Brie more than Juan Pablo Raba, if I had to name my favorite performance in the movie, it would Raba’s performance as the dictator. He feels the genuine of the bunch, he has personality, and I thought Raba blended into the role nicely. At the end of the day, I do not love the character and I did not know what to think of him. But if I had to name a scene stealer, and this is a generous statement by the way, it would be the dictator. I honestly wanted more out of this movie. I wanted better action. I wanted better comedy. I wanted better acting. I wanted a better story. When it comes to the story, by the way, it feels like an afterthought. Sure, maybe there was a decent motivation on the protagonist’s part, but as the movie progresses, it feels like we continuously have excuses to spew lackluster action scenes, bad jokes, and uninteresting gags that may occasionally have a sexual nature. I wish I could say when it comes to “Freelance,” one watch would be enough for me. If there were a way I could watch the movie zero times, I would love to make that happen.
In the end, “Freelance” is a gig that I should have quit before I even took it on. Between “Fast X” and now this, John Cena is not having the best recent track record. While I have to think about which movie I’d rather watch more, I’m starting to think “Fast X” has more redeeming qualities. Because at least some of the action is fun to look at, and when it comes to John Cena in that movie, he is actually pretty funny. In “Freelance,” not only is he not funny. He is genuinely unlikable. There is no way I found myself latching on this character by the movie’s end. The plot is all over the place. The characters barely stand out. The events of the film are easily forgettable. There are a couple cringe-inducing moments. I cannot recommend this film to anyone. I was amazed by the Rotten Tomatoes scores for this film. Because the critic score is at a whopping 0%! Meanwhile, the audience score is sitting at 76%! The divide on this movie is not only amazing, it is jaw-dropping! Because if you must know, I side with the critics on this one. But I genuinely want to know why this movie did better with audiences. What redeeming qualities stood out to these people? Then again, like all other art, film is subjective. When it comes to my subjective thoughts, I could never subject myself to this torture ever again. I am going to give “Freelance” a 1/10.
By the way, I want to congratulate John Cena, because this is not his first time being in a movie with a 0% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. This is due to Cena having a role in the television film “FRED: The Movie,” starring character popularized through online media by Lucas Cruikshank. Congratulations, John Cena! You did it! You hit the jackpot of utter lunacy! What are the chances of this? If there is anybody that I am convinced in their lifetime will be struck by lightning twice, it might be John Cena at this point. Who knows?!
I want to tell you a true story. I ended up going to two different AMC Theaters to watch “Freelance.” I was going to buy a ticket at the first one in person, buy some food, but I ended up forgetting my wallet. That would have been fine considering I have rewards points through my Stubs membership. I had plenty to waste, and if need be, I had quarters sitting in my car, that I could use if needed. But I am an AMC A-List member. Sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, the ticket taker will ask for your ID if you use one of your A-List reservations. Considering I did not have it on my person, I made a trip home and forfeited the screening. So, I waste over an hour between going home, going back out, venturing to a different theater and using my AMC A-List reservation there to get a free ticket for “Freelance.” I wasted time, gas, and my sanity to get this review out for you guys. And you know why? Because I like you. That said, this movie was not worth the effort. “Freelance” is one of the biggest wastes of my time I had as a moviegoer. It is unfunny, unsatisfying, and unthrilling. It is one of the worst films of the year for sure.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Persian Version.” I had a chance to go see this movie a couple weeks ago. I saw the marketing sometime prior, and I have been looking forward to it. I will share my thoughts soon! Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Priscilla,” “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes,” and “The Marvels.” If you want to see this 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 “Freelance?” What did you think about it? Or, here is a fun question… Have you seen any movies that have earned a 0% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes? If so, tell me what you thought about them. That should be fun, right? List your thoughts down below, I would love to hear them. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! And welcome one and all to the final entry to the Ridley Scottober review series! If you want to check out my reviews for the other films in the series, such as “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World,” click the provided links and have a ball! Today we will be talking about one of my most rewatched movies in recent years, “Blade Runner.” Also, if you want to see a less professional, perhaps crappier example of my writing, I reviewed “Blade Runner 2049” back when it came out in 2017. I was less experienced, but still had a sense of a writing style of sorts. Check it out! Before we begin this review, I want to make something clear. On this blog, when I review a movie, it is typically of the initial version released in theaters or whatever platform it was designed for. With “Blade Runner,” this is no exception. For this review, I will be using the theatrical version of the film as a baseline. Maybe one day I will do my thoughts on “The Final Cut” as a separate post, which I have seen. But I am treating this movie the same way I treat just about every single other one I watch. That said, if you choose to stick around and read this review, enjoy your stay, make yourself at home, and let’s dive into one of Ridley Scott’s most talked about films.
“Blade Runner” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Duellists) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), Rutger Hauer (Nighthawks, Inside the Third Reich), Sean Young (Jane Austen in Manhattan, Stripes), and Edward James Olmos (Wolfen, Zoot Suit). This film is based on the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and centers around LAPD detective Rick Deckard as he is tasked with hunting down and retiring four Replicants who come to earth on a stolen ship in order to find their creator.
“Blade Runner” is one of those films that has had an impact on me since the first time I saw it back in 2017. In fact, this is not my first time talking about the film on this blog as I once did a post weeks after my initial viewing, talking about what the film got right about the future. Again, much like my “Blade Runner 2049” review, my quality of writing may have been a bit different at the time. Just a fair warning.
Little to my knowledge, “Blade Runner” would have a major influence on my academics. If you knew me in high school, there is a chance that you were with me in a film studies class. “Blade Runner” was the first and last feature film I ended up watching in the class given how much of the curriculum tended to use that film as a backbone of sorts. In college, I ended up choosing to study “Blade Runner” for a final project in my Television & Film Studies class. I have developed a passion for this movie, this property, and if the right people are involved, I would not mind seeing more of it. Judging by what I just said, you already know that this is going to be a positive review. If “Blade Runner” had a personality and made an effort to describe my relationship with it, it would probably channel Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part III” and say “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”
Sorry, “Blade Runner,” my days of discussing you are not over just yet.
But I cannot help it, because “Blade Runner” is a master class effort. I think it is a particularly unique film. And it has done a lot to influence many stories that came after. The film is based on Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” which a number of claim is the earliest example of cyberpunk. This sub-genre has remained popular over the years with titles across various mediums like “Akira,” “The Fifth Element,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Altered Carbon,” and “Cyberpunk 2077” just to name a few. It is easy to get lost in a good movie with proper atmosphere, and when it comes to the cyberpunk nature of “Blade Runner,” getting lost in 2019 Los Angeles, or at least what this movie makes it out to be, is as easy as pie.
One of the basic rules of filmmaking is to show, not tell. And that is going to be an ongoing theme in this review. Because everything this movie shows is remarkable. There are tons of practical effects that are beautiful to the naked eye. The production design for this film is off the charts. There are very few films that are like this one aesthetically, and I say that knowing how much cyberpunk has evolved over the years. This film released in the 1980s, a time where cars looked quite different than they do today. And when I look at the vehicles in “Blade Runner,” they definitely have a look at the time that screams futuristic, but I admire how they seem to carry a vintage charm to them. I could totally buy the design of Deckard’s spinner in the film, even if it seems to look a bit like something from the time this movie came out.
Framing-wise, this is one of the coolest-looking films I have ever seen. Despite the film claiming it is set in Los Angeles, it feels like a different kind of environment. This film, at least at the time it came out, is science fiction. There is also a bit of a film noir undertone as well. This movie’s use of the color blue throughout is vivid in my memory. The color palette always packs in a blue tone. You can see hints of bluish lighting throughout the film. And one nice little touch in the background during various scenes are the many umbrellas going about the streets. Their handles have a bluish neon glow to them, almost like Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber in the early “Star Wars” installments. Speaking of “Star Wars,” one of my favorite Easter eggs about “Blade Runner,” if you pay close attention, is that there is a building in the film that resembles the look of the Millennium Falcon, Han Solo’s ship. And to top it off, Han Solo’s respective actor, literally plays the main character of this movie!
Sticking on the topic of things that look cool, one of the most intriguing designs in the whole film is the Tyrell Skyscraper. This building is utilized throughout multiple portions of the movie, and every time I look at it, I cannot help but stare in awe and wonder. The inside is enormous and carries a robust flair to it. From the outside with the help of lights shining through the windows, it looks screensaver-worthy. I also admire how the pyramid design allows for tons of incline elevators to be put in place throughout the premises. If you know me in real life, I am a bit of an elevator geek. If I were in the “Blade Runner” universe, one of the first things I would do is go into the Tyrell Skyscraper just to ride the elevator.
But just because this movie shows all sorts of cool things, does not mean it tells all sorts of cool things. Now to be fair, the dialogue in this film is minimalistic and it is perfect. There are plenty of scenes where the characters are completely quiet or there are inklings of silence. If you watched other versions of the movie, this will not matter, but if you watch the original version, there is a chance you may remember Harrison Ford’s character, Deckard, not only serving the film as a protagonist, but as a first-person narrator. While there are moments where the narration is not that much of a big deal, there are some that overexplain what is happening, and others that ruin the visual experience of this movie. One of the highlights of this film for me, from a visual perspective, is the scene where we see Deckard and Gaff inside the spinner, flying through a darkened Los Angeles. The aerial shots really help encapsulate the beauty of the city, even with a supposed sense of gloom in its people. The problem is, the scene, which has no dialogue from the characters, also features narration from Harrison Ford that sort of overembellishes the idea of cityspeak, a mix of pre-established languages. It is not really something I would need to know or care to know on my first viewing. It honestly reminds me of when I watch certain broadcasts of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” on ABC, and Ryan Seacrest is talking up a storm as I am trying to take in the first moments of the new year. I am basically trying to hear the crowd, listen to Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York,” and feel like I am there with everyone. But much like Seacrest’s voice on those occasions, Harrison Ford’s voice is nothing more than added noise. At the end of the day, it does not do much to benefit the film. There are a couple voiceovers that do not colossally damage the experience, but there are plenty that are better left unused. This is especially true for one used towards the end of the film where a crucial character’s arc is fulfilled. We are seeing this moment play out, and I am enjoying every second. Then it is suddenly interrupted with voiceover lines from Harrison Ford that basically spitballs what is happening for the audience, instead of allowing them to take in the lesson from the narration themselves. It is kind of insulting the more I think about it.
That said, I watched a documentary on the making of this movie, “Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner.” And if you have the Blu-ray edition of “The Final Cut,” you can watch it yourself. Harrison Ford revealed not only that he thought the narration, which was added due to poor test screenings, was awful, but he ended up doing it with reluctance. Ford was contractually obligated to complete the lines, so he did what he had to do. He tried his best with the material, but he did not think it was necessary.
Though speaking of Harrison Ford giving his best effort, his performance as Rick Deckard is perfect. The character easily blends into his increasingly depressing environment. He is the kind of guy who will not take any nonsense from anyone, but also kind of has a softer side on occasion. There is nothing overblown about this character, especially when you compare him to some of Harrison Ford’s earlier performances, like those he previously gave as Han Solo. In fact, much of what makes Ford’s character believable in his environment is his tendency to remain quiet during certain scenes, which is balanced perfectly by the mannerisms of this film’s antagonist, Roy Batty.
While Harrison Ford may be the most iconic face in the movie, I think the award for best performance in this film easily goes to Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. I have no idea if Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, this film’s writers, wrote this character with any particular actor in mind, but Hauer is one of the best castings for an antagonist perhaps in the history of cinema. There is a ton of range in a character like this one. When we first see him, his execution of the film’s dialogue is quite direct and to the point. It is almost kind of robotic, which should play into the fact that he is a Replicant. But as we go through the film, there is a continued sense of humanity that develops within this character. You can hear it in his voice, and even his physicality. I said there is a balance between Batty and Deckard, and I mean that wholeheartedly. It is perfectly displayed in the film’s climax, which is not particularly the most epic of climaxes, but it is one that serves the movie to perfection. That said, while I am ultimately rooting for Deckard, I cannot help but admire Batty throughout the climax because every other line out of him sounds like a grounded cartoon. This may be weird to say, but having rewatched this film for review purposes, the dynamic between these characters in the climax almost reminds me of a father and son playing tag or chasing each other around the house. It almost feels carefree even though there are higher stakes involved. Well, that, and there are moments where Batty twists Deckard’s fingers to get revenge.
The movie also kind of ends on a weird note. Again, this is the original cut we are talking about. There is a final scene, which believe it or not, uses footage that was originally made for Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining,” it is unbelievably rushed, and kind of uneven when consider how most of the film is paced. “Blade Runner” is kind of a slow burn, and by the time we get to this scene, it kind of kicks things up a gear or two. It is really weird. Overall, it is an abrupt scene. And while I definitely prefer the more open ending offered in future versions, I think if this movie were trying to go for a more upbeat ending, they probably could have gone for a longer scene. This scene is too quick, too in your face, and appears to be the result of a last minute decision that likely was not even on Ridley Scott’s mind while making his way through much of the film’s production.
Doing this review in 2023, I realize that some of the problems I have with the movie are those that tend to bog down the original cut and eventually get changed in later versions. That said, there is one problem I have with this movie that has lingered with me for years. While I think Sean Young and Harrison Ford have fabulous chemistry together as Rachel and Deckard, and every scene delivers the best out of each actor, I am not a fan of how their love blossoms. If you can call it that. This movie is written by two men, and I am sure that if a woman were credited with the screenplay, the scene where Rachel and Deckard first embrace their love for each other would have been handled differently. Basically, Rachel is trying to leave Deckard’s residence, but before she can get out, she is barricaded by Deckard, preventing her from making an exit, and pushed to a window. The two do end up embracing each other and confirming their love for each other, but the way it happens feels for starters, unrealistic, but also, kind of unsettling. It reminds me of another movie I have rewatched several times over the years, “Revenge of the Nerds,.” In that movie, sure, Betty and Lewis end up confirming their love, or perhaps more accurately at the time, lust, for each other. But the way that initiates is from Lewis basically assaulting her if you break it down. And much like “Revenge of the Nerds,” I will not deny that “Blade Runner” has reminded me of my love for movies in one way or another. But if I had to name a standout flaw with both films, and it is a monumental one, it would be a central love connection that may seem believable in the end due to proper chemistry, but is initiated in a way that can described as off-putting and erroneous.
As mentioned, “Blade Runner” is an example of cyberpunk, which likely takes inspiration from large cityscapes, but in a way, puts them on steroids. That said, even with a somewhat over the top nature provided throughout this movie’s interpretation of Los Angeles, everything around the city in terms of the environments and characters felt completely grounded. There is rarely a moment of this movie that I could not buy. This movie also manages to insert, for the most part, believable product placement. After all, it is set in a major city, so tons of advertising is to be expected. But from the very beginning, the frame is often bombarded with neon, noise, or product acknowledgments from companies like Budweiser or Coca-Cola. Ridley Scott manages to deliver an atmosphere with “Blade Runner” that not only emits realism, but for the entire runtime, makes me feel like I am there.
Though if I had to finish this review with one thing, it is that few movies, in fact few franchises for that matter, tend to answer the question, “What is human?”, like this one. I think Roy Batty, despite being an android, is perhaps one of the greatest encapsulations of that question in the history of film. We see him from the very start of his journey wanting more life. It is established that Replicants tend to have a four-year lifespan. Obviously, most humans live a lot longer, and that is something that he is trying to achieve. But if anything, this movie shows that life is not something you should take for granted. I am 23 years old. In fact, as I am writing this review, I am going to be 24 in just over a week. This movie reminds me to enjoy the moment, even in the darkest of times. Even in a city where the rain never stops, there may be one or two moments of sunshine. This movie may be set in a depressing future, but it is one where beings tend to find inklings of joy to keep themselves busy, whether that inkling can be defined as enjoying some noodles, playing chess, or fiddling with a piano. The beauty of “Blade Runner,” despite coming off as a slow burn and a thinker film, is its simplicity. At its core, “Blade Runner” is about a cop trying to stop a group of targets before it is too late. Everything else is just a bonus, and a mighty bonus it is. Because as far as I am concerned, there is a reason why I have rewatched this film so many times over the years, because it is that good.
Oh, and to answer the often debated question amongst fans, Deckard is a Replicant.
In the end, “Blade Runner” is one of Ridley Scott’s best films, even with its flaws. Again, a lot of the flaws I have in this review did get resolved, but I imagine if I did watch “Blade Runner” back in 1982, I would be having a ball with it. Unfortunately, the film did not do too well when it came out. It polarized critics, made an underwhelming amount at the box office, and possibly suffered from studio notes. Having to compete with another excellent and successful film, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” probably did not make things any easier. Even with that in mind, the film has a lot to offer. Exciting action, likable characters, incredible story arcs, life lessons, captivating writing, stellar direction, brilliant lighting, and stunning effects that make a number of modern movies that rely on CGI pale in comparison aesthetically. I must add, Vangelis’s score is also an absolute banger. “Blade Runner” is one of the best-looking movies I have ever seen, and it is hard to believe it looks this good over forty years later. But these looks are supplemented by a narrative that did nothing more than grabbed my attention and kept it for a couple of glorious hours. I am going to give “Blade Runner” a very high 8/10.
Again, if I were reviewing “The Final Cut,” I might honestly give a higher score. But I am treating this review the same way I am treating the other ones I typically do. And if you want me to be honest with you, as much as I love the original “Blade Runner,” it feels odd to say because I have not watched it in a while, but I honestly think “Blade Runner 2049” is the superior installment. It has all the positives of the original movie, but does some things to improve on it as well. Much like the original, that is another film that I have watched incessantly. In fact it finished as my runner-up for best movie of the 2010s. And if I could go back and do my review of it again, I would give it a 10/10 if I had the chance. Few films made me escape my reality and bring me to another world like that one did. I highly recommend if it is a rainy day, do a “Blade Runner” double feature. Both movies are absolutely worth your time and are two of the finest examples of what sci-fi can be.
“Blade Runner” is now available on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available through various streaming services.
Thanks for reading this review! And I hope you enjoyed my entries to the Ridley Scottober review series! I had a lot of fun doing these. I got to check out some films I have never seen before, in addition to watching one for the umpteenth time. I had a blast doing these and I hope you had fun reading them. If you want to see more reviews, good news! I have more coming soon! I will soon share my thoughts on “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” If you want to see this 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 “Blade Runner?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite science fiction movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy to have you all tune into this latest film review as we continue Ridley Scottober! A month-long event where I talk about four Ridley Scott-directed films, all for your reading pleasure. This is the second entry to the series, and it is an exciting one. “Gladiator.” I assure you, I was looking forward to watching this movie, and now I equally look forward to talking about it. And if you want to check out the first entry of Ridley Scottober, feel free to read my review for “Body of Lies.” But if you plan to stick around, please enjoy my thoughts on Ridley Scott’s 2000 Academy Award Best Picture winner.
“Gladiator” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Russell Crowe (The Insider, L.A. Confidential), Joaquin Phoenix (Clay Pigeons, 8MM), Connie Nielsen (The Devil’s Advocate, Rushmore), Oliver Reed (The Three Musketeers, Oliver!), Derek Jacobi (Hamlet, Dead Again), Djimon Hounsou (Deep Rising, Amistad), and Richard Harris (Unforgiven, Patriot Games). This film is set during the glory of Rome, and centers around General Maximumus Decimus Meridius, a general who becomes a slave who intends to seek revenge against those who brought him there in addition to killing his family.
I have a soft spot for Russell Crowe, but part of me does not know if I can legally say that, as I have not watched “Gladiator” until this review. Why? It is for the same reason I mentioned for “Body of Lies” in that review. I bought the Blu-ray years ago. In fact, I bought “Gladiator” almost a year before “Body of Lies,” but I just never got around to it until now. I had no vendetta against either of these movies, but one of the complications of being a movie collector is being able to sit down and watch the new films I buy because I have so many and sometimes want to revisit some favorite titles. One of the silver linings of this series and other review marathons I have done in the past like the “Mortal Kombat” films and some of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies like “At World’s End,” is that it helps me get around to titles that I have never seen before. In fact, “Gladiator” is one of those movies, much more so than “Body of Lies,” that when you bring up the fact of never seeing it, there is a chance someone will ask if you are a real movie fan.
I am a real movie fan. In fact those of you reading this questioning my moves for years should be jealous, because I am getting experience this film for the first time. Some may call it being late to the party, I call it a long-awaited ounce of excitement.
About 23 years after its release, “Gladiator” is still in many conversations as a master class film. It is #36 on the IMDb top 250. The film won five Oscars, including Best Picture. Over in Britain, it snatched four BAFTAs, including Best Film. There is plenty of proof to show how much the film has stood as a testament to the industry and the sword-and-sandal genre. But these are just the opinions of other people. There is only one opinion that matters here, and that is the one of the Movie Reviewing Moron. So, what did I think of “Gladiator?”
Sorry in advance… I am “glad” I saw it.
“Gladiator” goes to show the power of first impressions, because from the beginning, the film completely immersed me. The film has a story that showcases the glory of Rome, and the film itself carries a similar glory unto its own. There is so much going on inside the screen that it is insane. Between the humungous cast, with who knows how many extras, the beautiful showcasing of wides, and the magnificent on location sets, “Gladiator” is pleasing to the naked eye. I understand that at the time, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was kind of a big achievement in visual effects in terms of how deep they go with certain concepts, how real certain things looked for the time, but if I had to look back on both of these films now, I think “Gladiator” is the clear winner in terms of which is more attractive to the eye. I look back at “The Phantom Menace” and it sometimes looks like a video game. There have been worse looking effects, but still.
In fact, speaking of effects, there was one fight in particular that involves the use of tigers. It is easy to say because I am not the one making the film, but I kind of appreciated the film’s tendency to use real tigers. Now, I did question if the tigers were CGIed, which they partly were. They used bluescreen to make the tiger appear closer to the characters. That said, I admire how making “Gladiator” was probably about as dangerous as being a gladiator. I would have completely understood if this movie went down the full CGI route for the tigers, but the fact that they decided not to is a risk that paid off.
What also carries “Gladiator” are the performance. This is most notable with Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, an admirable protagonist. On the other hand, we have Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, an equally admirable antagonist. These two deliver two completely different vibes and mannerisms into their individual performances, but it does not change the fact that their work in this film are goldmines. Both of their deliveries are incredibly convincing. Even just their physicality, just having them stand around had me staring in awe.
But this film is much more than big fights and larger than life sets because I found myself immersed in the drama between the characters. Obviously there is the main story of Maximus trying to get his revenge, but in addition to that, I also found the family drama on Commodus’s side to quite compelling. Between how he gets his power, his relationship with his nephew, I found all of it intriguing. The film does a really good job at balancing various family, political, and personal dramas.
I will admit, having watched the film, there are parts of it that drag a little. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but in the scenes where people are talking, it is not necessarily that engaging. For the record, I can handle talking, I have no problem. But the scenes where people talk in this film are not as compelling as others, but there are select moments that positively stand out.
In fact, “Gladiator” as a film sort of reminds me, story-wise, of “Braveheart,” as it follows a someone trying to obtain their freedom, not to mention the freedom of others, within a backdrop of large sets and incredible violence. But much like “Braveheart,” as I watched the film, specifically the first 40, 45 minutes, I found myself getting bored and needing to pause the film to take a breather. For the record, I would contend that every minute of “Braveheart” is essential to the film. Much like how every minute of “Gladiator” is essential to it. But I would not deny that both films have pacing issues. Only difference, once I get past the first 45 minutes of “Braveheart,” the movie throttles heavily and gets good fast. “Gladiator” is very off and on with the pacing, but even in the slower moments, I still found myself the tiniest bit engaged. That said, having finished this film, this is one of those movies that if it were playing in a theater near me or if it got the IMAX treatment, I would go check it out. It looks like a magnificent theatrical experience. The cinematography is beautiful. The sets, again, are stunning. The sound editing and mixing are beyond powerful. Maybe if I watch this film in a theater, where I am less likely to be distracted, I would feel different than I do here. That said, the film is worth watching regardless and you absolutely should check it out if given the chance.
In the end, I get the hype for “Gladiator.” I had a good time with it. It is not my favorite of Ridley Scott’s films, and it is not even my favorite film of the early 2000s with huge sets and epic on location action. Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy started a year later. That said, it is one that if you asked me if I would watch it again, the answer would be an instant “yes.” I would probably put it on again at home, or again, if there were a chance to watch it in theaters, I would give it a chance. The cast is fantastic, the story is fascinating, and I must add that Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard’s score is mighty fine. I am going to give “Gladiator” an 8/10.
“Gladiator” is now available on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available on streaming and is free on Netflix for all subscribers as of this writing.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Gladiator” and want more Ridley Scott in your life, I have two more reviews coming in the Ridley Scottober series! One next week, followed by another the week after. Stay tuned. Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Last Duel,” Scott’s epic drama from 2021. If you want to see this 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 “Gladiator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sword and sandal movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy October! Or should I say, Ridley Scottober! What is Ridley Scottober? Well, throughout the month of October, I will be reviewing four movies directed by Ridley Scott! I wanted to do this because in addition to getting one themed review done this year, I might as well prepare myself for Ridley Scott’s upcoming feature, “Napoleon,” which so far has won me over with the marketing. I cannot wait to see it. Let’s kick things off with the first review in the series, “Body of Lies,” Scott’s 2008 spy thriller.
“Body of Lies” is directed by Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Aviator), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), Mark Strong (Stardust, Babylon A.D.), Golshifteh Farahani (M for Mother, Half Moon), Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story, Law & Order: Criminal Intent), and Simon McBurney (The Golden Compass, Friends with Money). This film centers around a CIA agent named Roger Ferris, who attempts to track down a terrorist leader in Jordan.
I owned the Blu-ray for this film for almost six full years, and yet I have not watched this film for the first time until only last month. On the cover, there is a lot to like. Between Ridley Scott’s name behind the scenes, in addition to DiCaprio and Crowe’s names standing out for the talent on camera. All of these people, not just today, but even back in 2008 have proven their worth. In fact, “Body of Lies” is not the first rodeo between Scott and Crowe, as the two have worked together multiple times before, therefore it shows they have a solid business relationship. The same cannot be said for Leonardo DiCaprio, but I am sure both individuals brought plenty of promise to each other at the time of production. When you have these three names together, it equally brings a lot of promise to the audience.
Unfortunately though, while the promises of this film do not appear to be empty, they do not feel like they were entirely met. Now, these three individuals do an okay job in the film. But I cannot say that this film comes off as the pinnacle of any of their resumes. Whether we are talking about a collective or individual effort. All three have done better things before, all three have done better things after. In fact, of the Ridley Scott pictures I have seen, this is one of the more pedestrian ones he has made.
The movie is shot well, like many other Ridley Scott pictures. In fact, this was shot by Alexander Witt. This is the first proper cinematography credit in a feature film. Much of his work prior, not to mention after, was as a part of a second unit, but this time around he is on the front lines. The way the camera is used in “Body of Lies” for the most part provides for a bit of an uneasy vibe. After all, that is what the film should be beyond its surface, it is a soldier vs. terrorist sort of rivalry. “Body of Lies” is a film that at times puts you in the middle of the action, but it does not have enough oomph to make me run out on the streets and recommend this film to others. Although if there is one additional positive to point out, the color palette of this film perfectly establishes its overall atmosphere. It has this moody feel to it, but it supplies itself in such a way where everything around it still manages to pack in a tad of thrills and excitement. It was easy on the eyes.
Speaking of beginnings, I am pleased to report that this film is one of the early roles from Oscar Isaac, who I think is one of the better performers who has tended to lend himself to content within the spectrum of popular culture over the years. This is not his first role. Isaac was previously in films like “All About the Benjamins” and “The Nativity Story.” But I think this film shows how solid of an actor he was early in his career. Despite his first name, he is not on an Oscar level here, but he is one of the standouts in this film for me, which says something considering who the two leads happen to be.
This film stars Russell Crowe in addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, and when it comes to the former, it is clearly established that he is a dad. Particularly, one who is heavily involved in the lives of his young children. This allows for an ongoing gag where his character is doing things for his children all the while trying to balance work. We see him on the phone with Leonardo DiCaprio completing important calls all the while either doing something such as taking his kids somewhere or tending to them. While this is a great way to establish a character’s background, the amount of time spent exposing this feels like overkill. I do not know if they were trying to be funny with this tendency, after all this is a thriller, not a comedy. Sure, maybe if I were a parent myself, which I am not, maybe I could relate to this gag. And the more I think about it, seeing this sort of reminds me of seeing my mom taking calls over the years while I am in her presence given her line of work. But when it comes to this gag, it feels like too much delivered in my face. The phone gag feels like the one moment that the movie is going for humor. But because everything else, for the most part, comes off as serious, the only reaction I have as this is going on is silence. I am not saying this should not be in the movie, it serves a purpose as to establishing the characters, but I think it overembellishes itself at times.
The narrative, in terms of progression, character development, and concept, all get the job done. There is nothing remotely broken that I can point out about the film in terms of how everything in it is laid out story-wise. All the characters work. The chemistry works. The concept works. And that is the best way that I can sum up “Body of Lies.” It is not a film that is overly offensive. But it is also not a film that I walked out of thinking that it is a game changer. It is a film that I think some people would kill their first born child in order to have it be as good as it is. But when it comes to the reputation of Ridley Scott, who continues to be one of the more respected filmmakers working today, this feels kind of bland. There is a reason why nobody is talking about “Body of Lies” all these years later and instead bringing up other films like “Blade Runner” and “Thelma & Louise.” It’s because those films made a mark on its viewers culturally and managed to deliver something special. And yes, “Body of Lies” is exciting at times and there are moments where the intrigue is there, but it is not enough for me to say I would watch it again in the next few months. Maybe it would make for good background noise if I find it randomly on cable, but that is probably the extent of it.
If there are any other highlights I can point out, I did like the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Roger Ferris, and his love interest he meets along the way. Said love interest, Aisha, is played by Golshifteh Farahani. I thought the two had solid chemistry and every moment they were on screen together, they clicked. They probably had the best connection in the entire movie. Their bond was fun to watch.
In the end, “Body of Lies” is… Fine, I guess. When I bought the Blu-ray six years ago, I was quite intrigued to know that Ridley Scott was behind it. I was intrigued by the big names on the cover. There was a lot of potential. The potential here is not wasted, but it does not mean the film doesn’t underwhelm. There is nothing about this movie that makes me angry, but there is nothing about this movie that makes me think I should go back to it anytime soon. Ridley Scott is a respected filmmaker. And while this may be an okay movie for some people, this may not be the finest Ridley Scott movie. I am going to give “Body of Lies” a 6/10.
“Body of Lies” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming. As of this writing, it is available on Max to all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this first installment to the Ridley Scottober series, guess what? I’ve got three more coming! I don’t think the next review is gonna be on Saturday like this one. To be frank, I wanted to get this review out a little earlier, but I have had a pretty busy week. And I honestly have a busy week next week too, because I’m gonna be on vacation in New York, but I should have some time to whip something up. I’m gonna be on a train for three to four hours, so I can definitely do something. Maybe I will drop the review Thursday. I am kind of playing this series by ear at this point. But if you want to see another one of my reviews for a Ridley Scott movie I did a couple years back, check out my thoughts on “The Last Duel!” That should hold you all over for some time. If you want to see this 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 “Body of Lies?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie from a respected filmmaker that you think may be one of their inferior works? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Meg 2: The Trench” is directed by Ben Wheatley (Rebecca, Free Fire) and stars Jason Statham (Furious 7, The Transporter), Wu Jing (Wolf Warrior, The Wanderers), Sophia Cai (Mr. Corman, Something Only We Know), Page Kennedy (S.W.A.T., Blue Mountain State), Segio Peris-Mencheta (Snowfall, Rambo: Last Blood), Skyler Samuels (Wizards of Waverly Place, Scream Queens), Sienna Guillory (Eragon, Resident Evil: Apocalypse), and Cliff Curtis (Avatar: The Way of Water, Fear the Walking Dead). This film is a sequel to the 2018 shark movie “The Meg” and once again centers around Jonas Taylor, who collaborates with a research team to uncover the many mysteries of a trench and the potential threats that lie within. The film is also inspired by the book “The Trench” by Steve Alten.
I got a good kick out of “The Meg” back when it came out five years ago. I did not think it reinvented shark movies, but when it comes to pure summer fun, that film was obscenely enjoyable. In fact, given how that film came out in the 2010s, the “Sharknado” franchise, which yes, are technically TV films, but still, were heavily on my mind at the time. I watched them, probably because deep down I must have liked torture. But I am kind of glad I watched the “Sharknado” films because when it comes to “The Meg,” they influenced my opinion towards the film. It feels like “The Meg” took the vibe from a “Sharknado” type of film, gave it a bigger budget, and added more pizzazz. I thought if they could keep that mentality going into the second movie, we could be in for yet another fine summer popcorn outing. I was looking forward to “Meg 2: The Trench.”
And just as I wanted, the marketing lived up to my expectations. It looked like it was going to be heavy on Jason Statham being awesome, marvelous visual spectacles, and shark action. It looked like colossal summer fun and I did not care if I ended up giving the film a barely passable score, because it did look like it would meet those terms, but it would have been one of the more memorable barely passable films I have come across if that were the case. Despite my barely passable score for the original “Meg,” I still think about it on a regular basis because I had a great experience watching it. And it actually managed to emit some shock for me in terms of its screenplay. While definitely not Shakespeare, I was pleasantly surprised as to where the movie would end up going.
When it comes to “The Meg,” that “Sharknado” comparison stands true today. Speaking of comparisons, I am happy to declare that “Meg 2: The Trench” makes “The Meg” look like “Jaws.”
Looking back, what must have tied “The Meg” together nicely is that it presents itself in a nice, solid pace. It is a pace that allows for crazy shark mayhem with some other moments to breathe in order to balance everything out. Sure, the first act is a tad dull at times, but the movie manages to work the more it builds. When it comes to “Meg 2: The Trench,” shark mayhem and moments to breathe also make their presence known, but when it comes to the faster paced shark scenes, I am not thinking about those as consistently as the moments that bored me. Maybe it is because I had, I am not going to say high, but moderate at best expectations going into this film. I really liked the first one, and even if this film barely scratches the surface of what the original delivered, it would still be a decent time. But it was not. This film is subtitled “The Trench,” but quite frankly, much of what involved the trench as the film went on made me tune out. It kind of made me sleepy. It made me fall into a trench of dreams.
And sticking with the topic of balance, when it comes to transitioning the horror aspect of “The Meg” from the franchise’s predecessor to this film, the results are not that great. The scares are cheap and uninteresting. The first film had a fine balance between action and scares. When it comes to the latter, it carries a significant absence this time around.
Despite my complaints about this movie, I will admit one positive consistency from the last film that is seen in this one happens to be the charm of Jason Statham. I am not going to pretend that Statham gives an Oscar-caliber performance or anything. In fact, in some ways, he seems to be playing a variation of himself. But when it comes to instant charm, he emits it throughout his entire time on screen. In fact, I like where they take his character when it comes to transitioning between the film’s events. Because we see he has become some sort celebrity figure because of his shark encounter. I like how the movie handles this aspect in particular.
I said “The Meg” is basically “Sharknado” if it were more down to earth and had a bigger budget. It is the kind of the thing that looks real and barely puts itself below a brain-melting threshold. “Meg 2: The Trench” honestly is what “Sharknado” would be if it were made for the big screen instead of Syfy. There are select moments in this film that jump the shark. Literally. And I am sometimes okay with an occasional whiffing away from reality every once in a while if the results are good. But in this case, they are not. There is one moment where one of the characters have to latch themselves onto a helicopter before they are executed by an explosion. By the time the explosion expands into the helicopter, part of me wonders how the fleeing individual even made it onboard. I could not believe my eyes. And that is ultimately what this movie is. A sight to behold. Except when it comes to the sights, they are not fun to look at. This film somehow looks worse than its predecessor. And that includes the trench, which I will remind you again, is in the title!
If anything, “Meg 2: The Trench” looks like an enhancement of our world, and I do not mean that in a good way. Everything in this film, and I kind of mean everything, looks too clean. All of it looks palatable, but yet it does not *feel* real. It kind of reminds me of what some people think of the “Star Wars” prequels. And unfortunately everything surrounding the shiny coat fail to make my time spent watching this film worthwhile. The screenplay and dialogue are extremely predictable at times. The supporting characters are beyond forgettable. And while this movie surprisingly has some halfway decent visual storytelling, it is also met with various scenes that did not offer any engagement. There is a lot of shark action by the end. But to be frank with you, I do not remember all of it, and to get to that shark action, you have to sit through the film equivalent of being tied to a chair with a gun to your head, and the only way you can survive is by fully reading through every word of a terms and services agreement. Between “Fast X” and now this garbage, Jason Statham is honestly not putting out his best work in 2023.
In the end, “Meg 2: The Trench” is a hot, watery mess. When it comes to shark movies, it is hard to know if we will ever see anything that surpasses “Jaws,” but with “Meg 2: The Trench,” today is not that day. If you want a halfway decent shark movie, “The Meg” is right there. Skip this one. Jason Statham is charming and there are some occasionally campy moments that can be considered fun, but they fail to match the joy of the first film. This film is dull, uninteresting, and by 2023 standards, the visual effects might not be up to par. Although that last part might be a little unfair because it is hard to match the look of “Avatar: The Way of Water.” I am going to give “Meg 2: The Trench” a 3/10.
“Meg 2: The Trench” is now playing in theaters. The film is also available to buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bottoms” and “A Haunting in Venice!” This weekend, I also plan to watch “The Creator” and “Dumb Money,” so I will have even more posts in the pipeline! If you want to see this 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 “Meg 2: The Trench?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the two “Meg” installments? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 