Action

Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024): Jack Black Does His Best in a Bland Fourth Installment to One of DreamWorks Animation’s Finest Franchises

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Kung Fu Panda 4” is directed by Mike Mitchell (Trolls, The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part) and Stephanie Stine (Raya and the Last Dragon, How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World) and stars Jack Black (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, School of Rock), Awkwafina (Renfield, Migration), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Malcom in the Middle), James Hong (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Mulan), Ian McShane (John Wick, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), Dustin Hoffman (Kramer vs. Kramer, Rain Man), and Viola Davis (Suicide Squad, Fences). This fourth installment to the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise centers around Po, who must become the Spiritual Leader and seek the next Dragon Warrior. As he deals with this new curveball in his life and finds himself in kahoots with a grey fox, Po must also keep the evil Chameleon from bringing back his past foes from the spirit realm.

One of the reasons why I am such a movie nut is because ever since kindergarten, I had a television in my bedroom. Therefore, almost every night, I would put a movie on the television. Around third and fourth grade, one of the movies I would loop on my DVD player is “Kung Fu Panda.” And I mean it when I say loop. One of the things I noticed early on about that DVD is that unlike many others I owned, it automatically starts the movie after a short period of inactivity. So when I would fall asleep to it, I would eventually wake up and find myself watching another scene from the film. It was like playing movie roulette. Safe to say, I watched “Kung Fu Panda” a buttload of times as a kid. And I must also note that the second film, which I watched a few years later, is on the same level as the original for me. To be frank, based on a recent rewatch of all three films, I think the second one might be my favorite. The third one’s not bad, but it has its fair share of weaknesses. It leans more heavily towards a comedic route whereas the other two tend to keep comedy and drama slightly more balanced. Although that is kind of funny to say because if I had to choose a movie I think is the funniest of the three, my mind directs itself to “Kung Fu Panda 2.” Guess it goes to show how much I liked it.

When they announced a “Kung Fu Panda 4,” I did not think it was as odd of an idea as say, a “Toy Story 4” when they announced that. That said, when they announced a “Toy Story 4,” I was not prepared for how much I would end up enjoying it. Even though “Kung Fu Panda 3” is the weakest of the previous installments, I thought it did an okay job tying things up in a bow and sending off our characters with grace. But now, apparently, there is more material to unravel. If “Toy Story 4” could work, there is always a chance that “Kung Fu Panda 4” could work as well.

What did I think of this new “Kung Fu Panda” installment? Much like the “Toy Story” movies, I can claim “Kung Fu Panda” is 4 for 4. All the movies released in this franchise are good. Unfortunately, also like “Toy Story,” this fourth installment is the worst of the quadrilogy.

That said, there is one noticeable positive consistency between this film and its predecessors, and that is Jack Black as Po. Obviously, having done the amount of material he’s done in the past, Black has the Po character down to a bit of a science. When it comes to “celebrity” voice actors, I think Black is one of the most talented working today. He is dynamic, upbeat, and always in the moment. He spews every line like he knows there is no tomorrow. There is always a sense of passion with his delivery. As I will highlight in this review, this movie does not have the best storytelling or writing. But Black makes the most of what’s in front of him.

While the main storyline with Po definitely has its moments, one of the most noticeable problems of “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a subplot between the two dads. You have Po’s biological father, Li (Cranston) and his adoptive father, Mr. Ping (Hong) getting into an adventure of their own. Something I have come across a lot through this movie and my recent rewatch of the other three is that these films tend to highlight lessons and experience that can tie to parenting. This one is no exception. An enormous heartbeat that drives the subplot involving these two fathers are their worries for their son. While something like this may come off as relatable to an older audience, perhaps a select few adults who saw these movies as kids and passing the torch to the next generation, it is the weakest part of the film.

In fact, the balance of comedy and drama is not the only thing that seems to be missing in this film. You know who is also missing? The Furious Five. Now, the film does establish they are missing for a reason. They are off on other missions. But a huge part of the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise is seeing Po interact with these five warriors. Unfortunately, co-director Stephanie Stine said on a Discord Q&A they were not in the movie due to the costs of the original actors. I missed them throughout this film, they have great chemistry together.

Instead, the closest thing we get to a side warrior in this film is Awkwafina as Zhen. I will give this character one thing over the Furious Five. Unlike the Furious Five, this new character is not just named after its respective animal. Imagine if I had a kid one day and I named it “Human.” That’s a choice if there ever was one. Moving onto more important characteristics, I will also note that this character very much represents someone who has seen a lot through urban life. Yes, we have seen Gongmen City in “Kung Fu Panda 2,” but “Kung Fu Panda 4” introduces a different kind of city in Juniper City. The first connection I can immediately make with this city with something in our lives is New York, particularly Manhattan. Everyone’s on the move, it’s crowded, and the film goes on with the fitting notion that you cannot trust everyone.

As for Awkwafina’s performance in the film, I had similar feelings regarding it to how I felt watching her performance in “Migration.” I was pleasantly surprised with it. Unlike “Migration,” Awkwafina plays a much more central character this time around so we see much more of her, but I was delighted to have my expectations exceeded. Her performance is definitely enhanced by some okay writing and layered storytelling. Again, compared to the other installments, the story and writing is not as good. But Zhen’s character is one of the script’s highlights. I was kind of worried that she was going to be an annoying sidekick who would get my nerves real fast. And while she is far from the franchise’s best character, the way she is handled in this movie gets my approval.

As of now, “Kung Fu Panda” is a multigenerational franchise. There are a fair share of gen y and z individuals who likely found themselves invested in some crevice of the property at least once when they were kids. Some of those people probably know or have children of their own now that they can share this movie with. Additionally, they made a television series on Netflix called “The Dragon Knight” that some younger viewers likely watched, so the age range this movie is targeting is slightly diverse. As someone who was introduced to the first movie by watching it at the IMAX at eight years old, I have a bit of a nostalgic connection to this property. And a big selling point of this movie is the nostalgia factor. Not just having heroic faces like Po and Shifu back, but also having the franchise’s villains return as well.

…Kind of.

As mentioned earlier, this movie features the Chameleon (Davis), who can turn into other beings, including Po’s old enemies. This means we see the return of Tai Lung (McShane), even if it is some grade B variant of the character because this Tai Lung does not necessarily come with the same depth as the one we saw in the original film. Not that I’m saying this character’s depth is supposed to be exactly the same. The chameleon is the main antagonist this time around. This story is more about her. That said, I liked her motivation to copy as many kung fu masters’ abilities as she can. On paper, it sounds enticing. Voice-wise, Viola Davis was a decent pick to voice the character. She does a good job with the role.

That said, it is nice to see McShane come back to voice Tai Lung, especially when this movie features other characters from the franchise’s past, both heroic and villainous, and we don’t even get a line out of them. We also see Lord Shen and Kai, the villains of “2” and “3” respectively. But they don’t make much of a contribution to the final product. They’re just there. This movie runs at a tight 94 minutes, which is consistent with the previous installments, and the runtime of DreamWorks Animations in general. I know there appears to be a formula to making these movies, but I would not mind them expanding the runtime just a tad to get a little more out of the other movies’ villains, especially when we see as much of Tai Lung as we do. For all I know, their respective actors said “no,” were busy, or they were never in the plan to begin with. But this could have been the “Spider-Man: No Way Home” of the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise where we get an epic return of the franchise’s villains. Maybe that was the plan all along, it did not fall into place, and the crew had to work with what they had. They had to work with no Furious Five, and a couple of wasted villain cameos. At a certain point it could have been too little too late. Is the movie still watchable with the material we have? Sure. But it could be better.

Much like “Kung Fu Panda 3,” the humor seems to be mile a minute. Unfortunately, the jokes are not enough to save the movie. The problem with having quite a bit of jokes is that not all of them are going to hit. They are quite off and on. There are a fair few that land, but there are also many that don’t. The jokes that miss in this film are by no means the worst I have ever heard. I was never offended. They just didn’t work for me. Despite the movie’s flaws, tonal differences from its predecessors, and lack of Furious Five, I am still glad I saw it. I had a good time with what was given to me. But I will not deny that unlike the franchise’s previous weakest link, “Kung Fu Panda 3,” which I had an urge to watch a second time as soon as I left, I do not think “Kung Fu Panda 4” sits in the same camp. That said, give it a shot and see what you think. For all I know, it may be a better experience for you.

In the end, “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a fun movie, albeit a slightly forgettable one. This movie comes with the pros of its predecessors from a polished animation style, flashy action sequences, a great score composed Hans Zimmer and for the first time in this franchise, Steve Mazzaro. To top it off, the movie delivers a spectacular voice performance Jack Black. Having seen this movie though, I do not know if I want to see a fifth installment. That said, if another “Kung Fu Panda” gets made, I hope that they can bring back some of the dramatic flair of the original two movies. I do not mind humor. I am not saying “Kung Fu Panda” should not be funny. If anything, it is a franchise that lends itself to comedy. I just wish the jokes we got were better. Also, between a continuously likable protagonist with Po, an okay supporting character with Awkwafina’s Zhen, and a somewhat well realized, but noticeably gimmicky antagonist with the Chameleon, the characters serve the story sufficiently enough for it to be halfway decent. “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a chance to introduce the franchise to a new generation. But I think a better way would be to put on one of the first two movies. But that’s just me. I am going to give “Kung Fu Panda 4” a 6/10.

“Kung Fu Panda 4” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews, you’re in luck! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Kung Fu Panda 4?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see the other “Kung Fu Panda” movies? Tell me your thoughts on them! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dune Part Two (2024): Long Live Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dune Part Two” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Wonka, Interstellar), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Greatest Showman), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Austin Butler (Elvis, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Florence Pugh (Black Widow, Don’t Worry Darling), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy, Blade Runner 2049), Christopher Walken (Catch Me if You Can, The Deer Hunter), Léa Seydoux (Crimes of the Future, Spectre), Souheila Yacoub (Making of, Climax), Stellan Skarsgård (Mamma Mia!, Thor), Charlotte Rampling (Restless, 45 Years), and Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, No Country for Old Men). This film is a sequel to the 2021 science-fiction epic based on the novel by Frank Herbert. It follows Paul Atriedes as he journeys with the Fremen while waging war against House Harkonnen.

It is crazy to think how far we are in the 2020s. The decade is flying by. It kind of feels like yesterday when I saw “Dune” for the first time in theaters. By now, I have seen it a few times in theaters, once on 4K Blu-ray, and a couple times on TNT. Safe to say, this film has taken up a significant part of my screentime through the past two and a half years. And like many people, I happened to dig it. I do not think it is by any means the greatest science fiction film ever. If anything, the pacing could have been improved. The color palette could have been tinkered just a tad in select scenes. The film feels far less eventful in its third act than it does in the first two, which felt a bit odd but I was engaged nevertheless. Overall, I thought the first “Dune” was fantastic. It even made my top 10 best movies of 2021 and won Best Picture at the 4th Annual Jack Awards. It is a really good movie and it is deserving of its praise, even if there are science fiction films I would rather watch first.

In fact, of Denis Villeneuve’s filmography, I think it is one of his inferior outings. I liked “Prisoners” better. I liked “Arrival” better. I liked “Blade Runner 2049” better. He did those previous two movies back to back and both were equally sensational. Even with the slightly weaker “Dune” coming afterwards, I will not deny that Denis Villeneuve is not only on a hot streak, but is building a case to become the greatest science fiction director ever. As far as my excitement for “Dune Part Two” goes, it was astronomical. All the trailers were great. The footage looked beautiful. And knowing that the film was shot in IMAX’s specialized aspect ratio was a bonus. I thought the film was made for the theatrical experience, and I was also happy to know that more people were going to get the chance to see this movie the way this and the last film were meant to be seen.

Shoutout to HBO Max for nearly killing movie theaters in 2021.

But the million dollar question is this… How was the movie?

Well, to answer that question… I am going to start off by stating a potential problem the movie has. And that is that I will never be able to watch it for the first time again. I will likely never get to experience the sense of euphoria the way I did seeing this movie during my initial viewing.

For those who nag about me not getting around to certain film classics like “Rocky” or “12 Angry Men,” those who choose to say I am not a real movie fan, I could do the same thing to you when it comes to “Pulp Fiction” or “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but I am not going to. Instead, I am going to tell you I am somewhat jealous because you have the opportunity on your hands to watch those movies for the first time. When I hear someone is going to watch either of those films for the first time, my initial thought is, good for them! I hope they have a time of their life equal to what I myself experienced during my first viewing. I feel the same way about “Dune Part Two,” because while I immensely enjoyed the first “Dune,” not only does this sequel feel like it is on another level, but it is one of the most innovative additions to the sci-fi genre that comes to mind.

And I say this knowing that this is a follow-up that just so happens to be the second half of a first book of a popular series that has already been adapted to both film and TV in the past. Nevertheless, this feels like something new. There are times where I watched “Dune Part Two” and could not help but make a couple “Star Wars” analogies. Based on its technical mastery and power, this film must emit similar feelings to when people watched “Star Wars” for the first time in 1977. Meanwhile, as a sequel, “Dune Part Two” reminds me a bit of “The Empire Strikes Back.”

This is not only because “Dune Part Two” is a high quality second installment, but when it comes to the duel scenes, those are improved here. Not that the duel scenes in the first “Dune” were bad. If anything, they were terrific. That said, the choreography is much more spellbinding this time around. Additionally, I felt incredibly riveted by the story and characters, which made the film’s action scenes all the more exciting. With these two ideas in mind, I can tell you there is a duel towards the end of this film that is nothing short of jaw-dropping. The choreography is so fast that you would think that Sonic the Hedgehog oversaw it. Meanwhile, it is all in the middle of a key scene of the film where the emotions of our characters reach a tipping point. Where the story reaches its finest moments. Where we get some of the finest exchanges and performances in the history of science fiction. There is a moment towards the end of the movie, it is in the trailer, where Paul Atriedes yells, “SILENCE!” As far as pure line delivery goes, it is arguably the most chilling utterance of dialogue of the decade so far. The only other line in a movie that I can think of that came out in the 2020s that rivals this for me is the final line of “Oppenheimer.” Specifically, “I believe we did.”

Another reason why I found myself calling this the next “Empire Strikes Back” is because it goes all out on its antagonists. Stellan Skarsgård returns once again to slay his performance as Baron Harkonnen. Dave Bautista continues to prove himself as a fine wrestler-turned-actor as Glossu Rabban. In fact, not only does Bautista cement himself as a superior wrestler-turned-actor when compared to John Cena and Dwayne Johnson, he convinces me he could rack up one or two Oscar nominations if he keeps up the good work. I have seen Bautista in quite a few movies now. “Dune Part Two” is easily his greatest performance yet. Between the “Dune” movies and “Blade Runner 2049,” I would love to see Bautista continue to collaborate with Denis Villeneuve as much as possible because they tend to bring out the best in each other. Both of these characters are intimidating and well executed. Every moment they are on screen had me hooked.

But the real star of the show, antagonist-wise, is Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha. While I did not love “Elvis,” there is no denying that Butler was the best part of it. Much like that film, his performance just so happens to be one of the best elements of “Dune Part Two.” There is such a sinister nature to this character that is almost beyond reality but in the case of this universe, I immediately bought into it from scene one. Butler makes it believable. This is a guy who will literally kill his own people on a whim, perhaps delivering him a great deal of satisfaction as a result. Feyd-Rautha works so well because he emitted a feeling in me that many great villains should be able to emit. He becomes a character that I love to hate. I would not want to go bowling with this character, but as a villain, he is perfect. Not only that, but Butler sometimes feels unrecognizable. I have not seen him in a lot of movies, but based on what I have seen him in before, he has a flair to his performance here that comes off as individualistic.

That said, this is film is led by Timothée Chalamet. In today’s culture, it is easy to say the idea of “the movie star” is dead. But if there are sparks of that idea that are still alive, then Timothée Chalamet is certainly one of them. And boy is he a fine star. Not only is he young and good looking, not only is he bankable, but he also just so happens to have incredible range. Prior to this movie, he starred in “Wonka.” While I was not a fan of the movie, I thought he handled the material perfectly. He made the movie fun. He was expressive, upbeat, not to mention a mighty fine vocalist. Now we go to his next movie, “Dune Part Two,” where Chalamet’s character is caught in the middle of war, politics, and drama. And Chalamet’s ability to immerse himself into a world like this is impeccable. It feels weird, but one of Chalamet’s hidden talents is making such a scrawny dude come off as one of the most convincing leading figures in recent cinema. Sure, he’s not exactly short, but muscular is not the first word I’d use to describe Chalamet as a person.

I think “Dune Part Two” has an advantage for general audiences. While I cannot imagine this movie being for everyone, I can see this movie having a wider appeal than the first one. The movie not only has more action, but I would say the action is better this time around. I also think this film’s use of Stilgar makes for a great sidekick role of sorts. He almost comes off as a guy you would be sitting next to as you are watching the movie. Maybe he recommended it to you and is guiding you for the ride. Additionally, he has some of the most memorable lines. One of my favorite moments in “Dune Part Two” is when we see him believe Paul refuses to mention he is “the one.” There is a reason why I am seeing the words “As it is written” all over social media right now, it is Javier Bardem does a phenomenal job as Stilgar. He is perfectly cast and I cannot imagine anyone else filling in his shoes.

That said, if you enjoyed “Dune,” that does not necessarily imply you will fail to do the same in regards to “Dune Part Two.” I am proof of that. I really liked the first “Dune.” I gave it a positive review. But I think this sequel feels more adventurous. The score, somehow, is more memorable its predecessor. There is a theme that blares throughout the movie that I cannot get out of my head. It does a good job at expanding the lore and building the world. The acting is better. And as a pure experience, “Dune Part Two” is simply put, superior. One of my problems with the first “Dune” is that it very much feels like an intro guide to the world within. The movie has a three act structure, character development, and pretty much everything else you need to call it a movie. But one of its flaws is that it tends to feel more like a “how to survive Arrakis tutorial” than a journey through Arrakis. Now with this movie, it feels like we are taking the tools we acquired from the predecessor and putting them to the test.

Thankfully, as I write this review, “Dune Part Two” is still playing in theaters. And I must tell you, if you have not seen “Dune Part Two” in a theater yet, do yourself a favor and get your tickets as soon as you can, because this is one of those theatrical experiences you have to see to believe. This is easily one of the best times I ever had in a movie theater. I felt like sand was coming through the speakers the entire time. I thought I was in the middle of the desert. I was convinced the wind was flying in my face. If you told me that I was in Arrakis for two and a half hours, I would have believed you. But there is a reason, above all others, why you should see this movie on the big screen. Sandworms. Yes, there are sandworms in the last movie. But that’s not the point.

In this sequel, there are several minutes in this movie dedicated to Paul first experiencing what it is like to ride a sandworm for the first time. This is one of the most riveting, loudest, most visceral, exhilarating scenes yours truly has ever witnessed. This is one of those scenes that shows why movie theaters are built. It shows why we make big movies for the big screen. When I look back at this scene, it was almost as if I were alive a century or two ago, I had never seen a movie and someone from the distant future time-travelled to when I would exist. That person would then show me the power of what movies could be. This scene is perfection. It was well shot, packed with rambunctiously satisfying audio, and is nothing short of a perfect tech demo. But in both the background and the forefront, we are seeing our characters experience the world in front of them, learn more about each other, themselves, and their abilities. As an audience member, I am getting a great mix of thrills, expansion of lore, and details about certain characters.

The movie makes such a simple moment of learning and adapting look like the most intense thing in the history of the world. This is a scene I will never forget. Once again, a moment like this will show why I would be jealous to find out someone tells me they are about to watch this movie for the first time.

I thought the sandworm action could not get as electrifying as this… Until the second half of the movie happened, and somehow it equaled, if not surpassed the thrills I felt before. There is a scene, you’ll know it when you see it, where there is a shot showing the perspective from a sandworm’s eye. It is one of the most eye-popping, beautiful things I have ever seen on a screen. It’s quick, it’s raw, it’s massive. It is basically an encapsulation that describes the film itself. I was thrilled to no end.

Although going back to the original “Dune,” this brings up something noticeable about this sequel. There is a reason why it has “Part Two” in its title. Obviously, it is the second “Dune” movie, yes. Also, it is the second half of the original book. But this really is true to its name, a “Part Two.” There are several sequels you could watch and appreciate without having to see the original movie. Having watched “Dune Part Two,” this is one of those movies where I feel in order to fully appreciate what is in front of you, it would be worth going back and giving the first “Dune” a watch at some point. Either if you forgot what happened, or if you have never seen it before. Because there are a couple moments that would hit harder if you have that movie under your belt.

I have not seen “Dune Part Two” a second time just yet, but knowing the how lost for words I became by the time the movie was over, my second viewing is definitely around the corner. But I will never forget my first time. And this is where I bring in another “Star Wars” comparison. Much like that 1977 science fiction event, I will look back at “Dune Part Two” as a film that will define a generation. It has flaws. I kind of wish to know how people get off the sandworms once they are done with them. Some of the pacing feels inconsistent, but even in the less consistent moments the story is still exciting. And again, if you have not seen the first movie, it could theoretically lessen the impact of this one just a little. Other than that, there is not much else can I say except this is one of the best fiction movies of the decade, and you should see it as soon as you get a chance.

In the end, “Dune Part Two” fits the classic motto of a fine sequel. It goes bigger, and it is better. “Dune Part Two” is not only superior to its predecessor, but it is also the first great movie I have seen in 2024. It is still early in the year, but I needed this. After “Madame Web,” “Night Swim,” and “Argylle,” I truly needed a movie that I could deem somewhere on the level of a master class effort. And this is that movie. Going back to what I said earlier, Denis Villeneuve is on a roll. While I think Christopher Nolan is the superior director, he has a knack for filmmaking that is on the level of Christopher Nolan. I have not seen all of his work. I still need to watch “Enemy” and “Incendies.” But from what I have seen so far from Villeneuve, I can say that I have not seen a single bad movie from him. I can easily name a least favorite, and that would be “Sicario,” but that is still a movie where there are more positives than negatives for me. If Denis Villeneuve ends up making a third “Dune,” perhaps an adaptation of “Dune: Messiah” that is on the level of these last two movies, it would easily further the case of him being the greatest sci-fi director of all time. Villeneuve is that good at what he does. But it is not just him. You have Greig Fraser’s immensely beautiful cinematography. Hans Zimmer’s roaring score. An incredible ensemble of actors across the board. Timothée Chalamet, Stellan Skarsgård, Rebecca Ferguson, Austin Butler, and Dave Bautista just to name a few! I did not even get to Zendaya! She does a really good job as Chani in this film. Regarding the love connection between Chani and Paul, I bought into it immediately. It is still early, so it is hard to know how this movie will do next awards season. That said, not only could I see this movie getting nominated for Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, …I can totally see it winning. It is that brilliant. I am going to give “Dune Part Two” a 9/10.

“Dune Part Two” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! Be sure to look out for my thoughts on “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dune Part Two?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite scene in film history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Drive-Away Dolls (2024): Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan Sparkle in a Quickly Paced, Splendidly Realized Thriller

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Drive-Away Dolls” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Fosse/Verdon), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers) Beanie Feldstein (Booksmart, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising), Colman Domingo (Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, Rustin), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Bill Camp (The Queen’s Gambit, The Night of), and Matt Damon (Oppenheimer, The Martian). This film centers around two women who find themselves intertwined with crime-riddled shenanigans during their last minute road trip to Tallahassee, Florida.

So far, February has not been kind to yours truly. At least in terms of the movies we are getting. Shoutout to “Madame Web” for literally slapping me across the face, kicking me in the shin, and gouging out my eyeballs. Then again, it’s February. I should not be surprised that we are getting some underwhelming sacks of crap. But even over the past decade there is often at least one film in February that not only stands out, but ends up being a contender for best film of the year. In 2014 there was “The LEGO Movie.” In 2016 there was “Deadpool.” In 2019 there was “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World.” But in this instance, it seems that February is back to its usual shenanigans of destroying any chances of good times at the movies unless the movie you’re seeing came out in the previous year.

Well, “Dune Part Two” happened, but that’s another story for another time.

Speaking of “Dune Part Two,” I have to say of all the movies coming out in February this year, “Drive-Away Dolls” takes my second place position for my most anticipated title of the month. That is one spot below “Dune Part Two,” so at least I had something to look forward to the week before that one came out.

And thankfully, I would have to say “Drive-Away Dolls” is a delight. It contains two likable leads, a well-rounded supporting cast, and plenty of intriguing moments that are accentuated by good characters. Many of the film’s wins perhaps would not be possible if it were not for Ethan Coen’s vision. I have not seen all of the Coen Brothers’ movies, regardless if they are solo or together. That said, this one works because it successfully delivers a big bang in such a short runtime. The scenes fly by partially because of fast-paced dialogue and fairly tight editing. There are moments to breathe, but I will not deny that the movie gives quite a bit in just 84 minutes including credits.

Technically speaking, this is one of the most vibrant films I have watched in recent memory. This film is colorful, bright, and polished. One film I watched earlier this month was “Lisa Frankenstein,” and in that review I say the film “looks like something from another world.” When I look back at that movie and compare it to “Drive-Away Dolls,” they sometimes feel similar from a looks perspective. Both offer spectacular lighting that offers a bit of variety from scene to scene. Some of the costumes in both projects stand out. And there are moments where even the sets are easy on the eyes. There is a particular hotel in “Drive-Away Dolls” that not only looks exquisite, but beautifully fits the tone of the movie. Every moment we spend in this hotel with our two leads is worthwhile.

Speaking of the two leads, not only do Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan give solid performances that allow the duo to be as dynamic as possible, but I cannot see anyone else playing them. I have respect for both of these actresses. I have not had a ton of experience with Margaret Qualley, but I thought she shined like the sun in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” one of my favorite Quentin Tarantino flicks. I noticed some of her mannerisms from that movie seem to make their way into her role of Jamie as well. And while I would not specifically call “Drive-Away Dolls” a comedy per se, there are plenty of comedic elements. There is a natural goofiness, if that is even the correct term to use, to the main duo that is incredibly palpable. The movie does a good job at fleshing this duo out and authenticating them. They feel like they belong in a world like the one this movie presents.

And of course, Geraldine Viswanathan plays the other leading lady, Marian. Sticking with the comedy aspect, I think Viswanathan also does a good job at playing up some of the more comedic parts of the film. I should not be surprised though given her background. She was in one of my favorite comedies of 2018, “Blockers.” She was also a regular in TBS’s “Miracle Workers,” which is a fantastic show. Viswanathan is a natural when it comes to matching her personality with the movie’s tone.

But just because there are comedic moments in the film, does not mean the it refuses to get serious for a moment or two. Multiple tones intertwine beautifully and in no way feel inconsistent. That said, knowing what this movie is about, how the events progress, and the way everything unfolds, of course comedy is to be expected out of something like this. I do not want to give any spoilers as to certain things that happen in the movie as the marketing shrouds some things in secrecy and I was admittedly surprised when certain things come up, but this movie gets wild.

On top of Qualley and Viswanathan, you have an amazing group of supporting actors. Need any more proof this film scores big in the comedy department? Watch Beanie Feldstein play Sukie the cop. Perfect is a word I wish to use sparingly in life, but Feldstein’s performance comes close to perfection. Bill Camp as Curlie has a notable presence throughout the picture. And Matt Damon easily makes the most of his screen time. Similarly, I think I made the most of my time watching this film. I would give it a thumbs up.

In the end, “Drive-Away Dolls” is quite good! In fact, sometimes, it delivers a flair only a movie of its kind can bring to the table. Great acting. Great directing. Eye-popping aesthetics. What more could you want? “Drive-Away Dolls” is not the most surprising movie of all time, and when it comes to quality I have to admit there are better movies from the Coens, not to mention in general, but if you want a good movie that could make for a decent one time watch, “Drive-Away Dolls” is an entertaining ride. I am going to give “Drive-Away Dolls” a 7/10.

“Drive-Away Dolls” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you liked this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” and “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Drive-Away Dolls?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some good road trip movies that come to mind? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Beekeeper (2024): Jason Statham Stings Some Baddies in This Entertaining Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2023): Illumination’s Second Barely Passable Animated Flick of 2023

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2023): A Jaw-Dropping, Planet-Shaking, Monster-Sized Masterpiece

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2023): A Historical Epic with a Tall Runtime that Falls Short of any Level of Engagement

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2023): A Terrific Trio Delivers in a Freaky Friday-ish MCU Outing

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2023): Worst Movie of 2023?

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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!

Blade Runner (1982): Gimmie a Hard Copy Right There

Posted on by Jack Drees

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!