“Napoleon” is directed by Ridley Scott (The Last Duel, House of Gucci) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Joker), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Tahar Rahim (A Prophet, The Mauritanian), and Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding, An Ideal Husband). This film is about the rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, diving into many aspects that define the individual, in addition to his relationship with his wife, Josephine.
I was looking forward to “Napoleon” as I am a fan of Ridley Scott. The trailers undoubtedly looked epic and it delivered a similar vibe to another historical epic Scott mastered in his time of making it, “Gladiator.” And of course, with a prominent, talented thespian like Joaquin Phoenix at the forefront, I thought we could be in for something special. Unfortunately, when the reviews started coming out for this film, that is when I decided to lower my expectations, as it seemed to stray away from historical accuracy. But as someone who looks for entertainment in his movies, I can live with a little bending of history as long as you can make a good movie out of it so I tried not to get too concerned. Unfortunately, I walked out of “Napoleon” almost half asleep. And that is really weird to say because one of the positives I have about this movie is the immersive sound mix. It is an enormous aid during the battle scenes. As much as I love Ridley Scott, I think this film is quite a dud.
This film feels rushed, and yet, it somehow managed to bore me with a two and a half hour runtime. I can sit through a two and a half hour movie. Some of my favorite movies are longer than that. But this was painful. I think the one redeeming quality of this movie was watching the uncomfortable relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. But when I say that is a redeeming quality, I must also note that it is like watching a car crash at times. There are certain moments between these two that are intriguing, but there are others where the intrigue comes in, but in a such a haphazard manner that I would feel as if I am doing myself a disservice if I look away. Now to be fair, the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby is admirable in regards to how their characters are written and performed.
As we age, there is a tendency that people define themselves over who they surround themselves with, their legacy, how things will be carried on after they’re gone. And when it comes to displaying Napoleon’s desire to keep things afloat and continue his legacy to the next generation, these traits are emitted with passion on Joaquin Phoenix’s part. My favorite parts of the movie, or at least the ones I cannot stop thinking about, all involve Napoleon’s burning desire to have a child. I think the way the movie handles this segment of the story is surprisingly decent, even if it does get a little over the top.
Speaking of over the top, that is one of my biggest negatives of the film. Phoenix and Kirby shine in their individual roles, but there are plenty of other individuals on screen, and their acting ability has me questioning whether I was actually watching something from a director as renowned as Scott. There are select lines from certain characters that feel like they came out of a high school TV production class. Sometimes those lines are delivered with passion, but they are delivered with a certain passion that would probably be best used in an animation or a comedy as opposed to a somewhat grounded drama. In fact, the movie sort of crosses a line at times into comedy that I have no idea if it was actually intended. There are select scenes that play out in a much funnier manner than I would have imagined them. It almost spirals into a “so bad it’s good” territory, which is a phrase I was not expecting to use when reviewing a Ridley Scott movie.
Even with my issues, I must admit, “Napoleon,” like many of Ridley Scott’s films, is easy on the eyes. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, like usual, is beautiful, even if some of the shots feel a tad rushed in the final edit. The locations are excellent, fit their scenes, and bring life to the production. The production design from one of Scott’s regulars, Arthur Max, is outstanding. The costumes have notable detail. The film is a crisp step back in time. But just because “Napoleon” nails its style, does not mean the same can be said for its substance.
I was bored immensely with the film’s pacing, its story. Everything. There are several moments where I kept asking myself if the movie was over. And the worst part is knowing that this is not a complete product. This is just a lackluster Cliffs Notes edition of a larger tale, because it has been revealed that this production will have a four hour extended version. I kind of get why you would not want to release a four hour movie in theaters, but I would sit through one if I had the time if it meant the pace and story would bring more appeal. Here, it kind of feels rushed and it lacking in engagement.
When it comes to my time studying history, I was off and on as a student. In my opinion, “Napoleon” feels like reading a history textbook. And I do not use that comparison lightly. Basically this whole movie is one giant chapter or unit that I have to go through, and I am passively taking it all in to the best of my ability due to of my lack of interest. I cannot tell you everything that happened in the movie, so if you were to hand me a quiz I would probably not do so hot. And much like reading a textbook, I failed to find any entertainment value in what was in front of me. If I wanted Ridley Scott to entertain me with a slice of history, I will just go back and watch “Gladiator.” I will go back and watch “The Last Duel.” “Napoleon” just doesn’t do it for me. And I think a big part of it is because of how much the movie dives into. It feels like we are hopping from one place in time to another lickety split. With a movie like “The Last Duel,” one of my new favorites from Ridley Scott, there is a central idea the characters have to deal with that remains consistent. In fact, we see it play out a few times in different ways, which makes for a compelling narrative. The film is digestible despite being drawn out. So much happens in “Napoleon” that I would almost argue you need a longer runtime to actually appreciate it. Maybe this would be a good miniseries, but I think the spectacle aspect that is best witnessed in a cinema is probably what could have kept it from going in that direction. And if you are asking, no, I do not have plans to check out the extended cut of this movie. I have better things to do with my time.
In the end, “Napoleon” is a massive disappointment. This movie takes one of the most talked about historical figures of all time and wastes him in a dull, uninteresting, downtrodden mess that nearly put me to sleep. It is much less a story than it is a series of events that failed to capture my interest. The only real shining spot of the film are the performances given by Phoenix and Kirby as Napoleon and Josephine respectively. In fact, part of me wanted to see more of the Josephine character, I feel like she at times offered a more compelling presence than Napoleon did. I have seen movies like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” handle Napoleon Bonaparte from a much more comedic angle. Somehow I continue to think about those attempts at showcasing the character in a much more positive light than I do with this two and a half hour historical so-called “epic.” Yes, it’s technically glorious. You know what was also technically glorious? “Jupiter Ascending!” But you don’t see me raving about the characters of that movie every now and again. I am going to give “Napoleon” a 4/10.
“Napoleon” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of my Ridley Scott movie reviews, I just did a themed month called “Ridley Scottober” where I discuss four Ridley Scott films in depth. That said, feel free to check out my reviews for “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” “All the Money in the World,” and “Blade Runner.” My next review is going to be for “Godzilla Minus One,” and boy, I cannot wait to share this one with you all. But, I am going to have to wait. Because my next post is going to be an update on Blu-ray Movie Collection! Stay tuned! If you want to see this, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Napoleon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a historical figure? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Marvels” is directed by Nia DaCosta (Little Woods, Candyman) and stars Brie Larson (Room, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Teyonah Parris (If Beale Street Could Talk, Mad Men) Iman Vellani, Zawe Ashton (Velvet Buzzsaw, The Handmaid’s Tale), Gary Lewis (Joyeux Noël, Gangs of New York), Park Seo-joon (Kill Me, Heal Me, She was Pretty), Zenobia Shroff (The Big Sick, Soul), Mohan Kapur (Sadak 2, Hostages), Saagar Shaikh (Unfair & Ugly, Average Joe), and Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, The Incredibles). This film features three superheroines who must band together to save the universe while dealing with an entanglement in their powers.
If you told me a month after “Captain Marvel” came out that we would be getting a sequel within the next few years, I would have believed you. In addition to being one of the most prominent comic book movies with a female lead, serving an underrepresented demographic, the film did gangbusters at the box office, grossing over a billion dollars. Unfortunately, if you ask me, I honestly think “Captain Marvel” is one of the weakest of the MCU films, and I gave it a 4/10 in my original review. Looking back at the film, it shines whenever Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson share the screen together. But there are many other instances where it falters. I thought the way Larson’s character was directed and written could have been better. I thought the hero’s stoic nature made her less palatable than she could have been. And I hate saying that because when I look back at Larson’s previous work like “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and “Room,” she has legit acting chops. And for all I know, she fulfilled the requirements of her role, but she was not given her finest work here. The villain is somewhat forgettable. The movie’s structure is a bit of a choice. Goose the Cat got on my nerves by the end of the film, and speaking of that, the film, which serves as a prequel to events that happen later in the MCU, reveals a certain detail about Nick Fury. Given the greater context of the MCU, I really hate how they went about exposing this detail. It felt out of left field and borderline cringeworthy.
But since “Captain Marvel” came out, we saw the rise of Disney+, which has brought shows like “WandaVision” and “Ms. Marvel” to the small screen. The former show features a prominent story from Monica Rambeau, the daughter of Maria Rambeau who is notably featured in “Captain Marvel.” Meanwhile Ms. Marvel introduces the new hyperactive, young, titular character to the ongoing universe. Thankfully, when it comes to the Marvel Disney+ series this film chooses to interlink, it chooses my two absolute favorites. Honestly, all the rest, minus select episodes of “What If…?” pale in comparison. But if you want my two cents, this brings up my first, and most obvious critique when it comes to “The Marvels.” If you have not seen “Captain Marvel,” then maybe you’ll be okay. You can get a sense of who Captain Marvel, AKA Carol Danvers, is in the snap of a finger. The movie does an okay job interjecting the two other leads, but I think you are easily going to appreciate them more if you tune into the Disney+ shows. If you read some of my more recent MCU movie reviews, my most prominent critique is that this whole cinematic universe is increasingly feeling like homework. “Doctor Strange in the Multiverese of Madness” sometimes feels like a commercial for “WandaVision” a year after its release. There is a certain connection a couple characters have between “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” that is established in The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special.” The impact of that feels lessened knowing it comes from something comparatively smaller and timely. That said, the movie is still a banger, you should watch it.
“The Marvels” is honestly diving into a territory where the movies are taking advantage of as much Disney+ material as it can muster. If you did not see “WandaVision,” the impact of this movie would be lessened. If you did not see “Ms. Marvel,” I think there is still a lot to enjoy with the character, but maybe the impact would not be there as much. And with all these characters coming together in one picture, this is kind of what I feared would happen with the MCU. We would get to a point where the movies and Disney+ shows would be totally linked to a point where you almost cannot have one without the other. I enjoy the MCU, but this film reminds me of how much more fun this universe was when it was just about the next big event picture, and now with the TV shows, it comes off as a commodity to the point where there is too much. “The Marvels,” despite my enjoyment of it, feels like a mish mash. There is so much going on in such a short runtime.
But what saves the film in such a seismic manner just so happens to be the three leads themselves. Regardless of how much knowledge you had about any of them prior to watching this movie, I am willing to bet that if you watch this movie by itself as an introduction to these three characters, you will walk out having liked them. If anything, I think this film gives a much more likable portrayal of Captain Marvel than what we got in her 2019 film. She has a wider range of emotions while also maintaining her space goddess mentality she carried throughout her previous appearances. When it comes to Monica Rambeau, I think if I had to name the weakest character in the trio, it would be her. She appears to be given the least to do amongst the three, but she has a number of decent lines and standout moments on screen. Easily my favorite of the trio is Ms. Marvel, AKA Kamala Khan. A lot of that has to do with the infinite charm emitted by young actress Iman Vellani. Between the “Ms. Marvel” show and now this brand new movie, Vellani is perfectly cast in Ms. Marvel’s shoes. Vellani herself is a massive Marvel fangirl, and she very much interjects that into the personality of the Ms. Marvel character. If anything, Vellani reminds me of myself a little bit. She is dynamic, often upbeat, and often carries a smile even when the situation may seem dire. She spends a ton of the movie looking up to Captain Marvel as an idol and when she sees her in person, she almost comes off as if she is getting too close.
If this movie proves anything, it is that of the three main heroes in the trio, Ms. Marvel is easily the most fun to watch, and Marvel should honestly utilize Vellani’s talents as much as they can. She clearly enjoys playing the character. A lot of the stuff she is doing stands out amongst Marvel’s recent fare. And she is practically a scene stealer. Additionally, I love her family, particularly her parents. Both have tons of personality. For the screentime they have in this movie, they are used to their maximum potential.
Unfortunately though, the movie is not all rainbows and unicorns. In addition to the whole Marvel becoming homework thing that seems to increase in every other project, there is a scene in this film that feels entirely out of place. “The Marvels” is undoubtedly lighthearted. Especially when compared to other Marvel projects like “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” and “Eternals.” But there is a scene in this film that feels too light to the point where it feels like it is coming out of a goofy Disney animation. Without giving too much away, the main trio ends up going to a planet where we find out the inhabitants all communicate through song. The way this is done is about as close to a bad “SpongeBob SquarePants” episode that the MCU has gotten in its decade and a half of existing. I have spent much of this movie with my mouth open. Either because I was eating popcorn or laughing. I had my mouth open during this scene as well, but not for good reason. I was perplexed as to what was going on, if I was dreaming, and if this was even the same movie I was just watching moments earlier.
There is also another scene that is not as bad, but is still a lesser moment of the film that somewhat failed to emit the effect it was probably going for, and it involves a ton of cats. Now maybe if I was a cat person I would feel differently about this scene. Heck, I’m not even a dog person. I’m barely a people person. But as this scene was happening, my brain kind of turned itself off and back on again. I knew what was happening, but I was not able to get any reaction out of it. If I had to name a low point of the Marvels, particularly a low point that is still high enough to keep me from ripping my ears off my face, it would be the chaotic flerken scene. It might be a hit with some audiences, but it was not for me.
The beauty of the best Marvel movies is that even when there may be a ton of setup for what’s to come, the product in front of you feels like a delicious main course. Don’t get me wrong, “The Marvels” was enjoyable, but it feels like an overreliance of what came before while also setting up so much for what could come next. When I said this movie is so much going on in such a short runtime, I was not kidding. I do not mind a short movie, I also do not mind a long movie. But a movie works best when it evenly distributes its material for a best possible runtime that can keep me engaged. “The Marvels” kept me engaged the entire time, but it did so while going at a pace that felt almost equal to a disposable TikTok video.
When it comes to Marvel villains, they are all over the place by now. After all, with so many movies out at this point, you are going to have your high and low moments. When it comes to the Marvel villain rankings for me, this film’s antagonist, Dar-Benn, is around the middle to low tier. I thought Zawe Ashton does a decent job as the character. But if I have to pinpoint any noticeable flaws, I would say that some of her lines are cliche. She does not really do much to stand out similar to say Marvel’s last two villains, specifically Kang the Conqueror and the High Evolutionary. Both villains do a great job at making their presence known or establishing clear motivations that make them the character in the film I love to hate the most. Dar-Benn has her moments. She is fun to watch in action. The way they utilize a couple plot devices with this character is effective. To call her cookie cutter would be a tiny stretch, but she is probably going to be one of the MCU’s more forgettable villains we have gotten over the years. She is not offensive, but to call her anything beyond serviceable would be generous.
If Marvel, and the comic book movie sub-genre in general for that matter, has lacked something for many years, it is a set of prominent female-led films that are really good. Sure, the 2017 “Wonder Woman” movie was fantastic, and for some time, my favorite film in the DCEU. Yes, I enjoyed “Black Widow” and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” And yes, “Captain Marvel” made over a billion dollars, but I think this film does a better job at showcasing women superheroes in the forefront than that movie did. And that is highlighted by something I felt was lacking in “Captain Marvel,” emotion. Throughout my watch of “The Marvels,” I came to the conclusion that I was having a much better experience watching the leads. No disrespect to Samuel L. Jackson, I would honestly rather see Brie Larson next to Teyonah Parris and Iman Vellani for a bit longer if I could. And when it comes to the idea of emotion, Captain Marvel is more dynamic this time around than in her first MCU appearance. Additionally, the two supporting heroes add quite a bit to the table to keep me engaged. I think the movie, despite its flaws, works because it takes these three heroes and does a great job at fleshing them out. It dives heavily into their strengths, their weaknesses, their personalities. And that is something I kind of wanted to see out of Captain Marvel in her first outing in the MCU. Sure, we learn a bit about her backstory there, but I was more compelled by how her story is laid out in this film. And the material, whether it is better or worse than “Captain Marvel” honestly lends to a superior performance from Brie Larson herself. Maybe it is because she’s already played the character so she has had to time to adjust to the role, but I think she is better here than she was in “Captain Marvel.”
Part of what makes these three leads click is not just their interactions and how the movie utilizes their chemistry, which is as close to perfect as it can get to be honest. But the film’s driving concept for these three heroes lends itself to pure fun. I sometimes find myself fascinated with a “Freaky Friday”-esque concept. In the case of “The Marvels,” the characters do not quite switch bodies, but more or less switch places. In addition to being a clever idea, it also lends itself to a fun montage with the Beastie Boys song “Intergalactic” playing in the background.
In the end, “The Marvels” is sort of all over the place. But the positives heavily outweigh the negatives when I break everything down. If you asked me if I were to watch this movie sometime in the next year or so, I would not be opposed to it. I do not think it is the best superhero movie this year. If anything, it is one of the weaker ones, but I think it is still as entertaining as popcorn movies can get. It is hilarious, has great characters, and comes with a concept that is… (sigh) marvelously done. I think the film’s biggest weakness comes from the notion that the MCU itself has gotten so big. And personally, I would not have as much of a problem with that if Disney+ did not exist, but now that Marvel movies and TV shows are interlinked, I think it is only leading to extended convolution in the franchise. And while I may watch just about everything the franchise has to offer, the film relies on a bit that comes before it, and that could be a red flag for general audiences or less informed consumers. There are a couple gags that do not work, and I do think the villain is alright at best, but the terrific trio, and that is putting it lightly, of superheroines make this latest comic book movie worth the watch. I am going to give “The Marvels” a generously high 6/10.
I almost want to give two scores for “The Marvels.” Because if we are going for a pure fun factor, this movie would probably be an easy 7/10, but I also have to recognize that this movie works for me probably because I was exposed to much of what the MCU has to offer. The film sometimes relies on a couple movies and TV shows in its marketing and I think if you did not see those, this would be slightly harder to recommend. That said, I think you could still have a decent time with the movie. But there are a lot of other titles in the MCU that would be a better gateway to everything else. I took my dad to see this film, and while he missed out on “The Marvels,” he still liked what he saw. He did not have anything initially negative to say about it. Having talked with him since, we came to an agreement that this is not Marvel’s best work, but we both had a fun time.
“The Marvels” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Disney’s latest animated film, “Wish!” The film just hit theaters last week, and I will have my thoughts on it soon! Also coming soon, I will have reviews coming for “Next Goal Wins,” “The Holdovers,” and “Napoleon!” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Marvels?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Captain Marvel?” What about “WandaVision?” Did you check out “Ms. Marvel?” Let me know about your thoughts on those entries to the MCU! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Freelance” is directed by Pierre Morel (Peppermint, Taken) and stars John Cena (The Suicide Squad, Blockers), Alison Brie (BoJack Horseman, The LEGO Movie), Juan Pablo Raba (Peppermint, Narcos), and Christian Slater (Inside Job, Archer). This film is about an ex-special forces operative who takes a job to protect a journalist tasked with interviewing a dictator. When a coup happens during the assignment, the three must defend themselves all the while navigating the jungle for their own survival.
To say I was looking forward to “Freelance” would be like saying I am looking forward to going to the DMV. Sure, I like making sure I am able to drive. But all the dirty work within that is not that appealing. In the same way, I enjoy John Cena’s work… Well, enjoy is a strong word. I am not exactly thrilled with what he did on TBS’s “Wipeout,” but still. As I look at the poster for “Freelance,” it has the look of a straight to DVD action flick released exclusively at Walmart that is probably not going to be discussed two years from its official release. There is something about it, the more I look at it, that increasingly turns me off. Even the tagline sounds over the top. “Retirement doesn’t suit him.” Okay, then. I wish the advertising suited my tastes but this goes to show why we cannot have nice things. It almost has the look and feel of a lifeless parody movie. It’s too bright to be serious, but it tries way too hard to make me laugh, and fails miserably. Once again, John Cena is becoming a respectable star in both film and television. That said, the greatest thespian, he is not. He is basically like Dwayne Johnson, another wrestler turned actor. He has personality and oozes charisma in various roles, but he does not always escape into the role at hand. “Blockers” is a halfway decent example. John Cena is really funny in the movie. Honestly, he stands out in the movie. I really like his character. But he showcases a particular, consistent stiffness as the lead role. In “F9: The Fast Saga,” which I almost forgot he was in… Nice, right? He was one of the weaker talents on screen. He was not convincing as an antagonist, and he was equally, if not more unconvincing, as Dom’s brother. But to be fair on the latter, that’s probably more of a casting issue than a performance issue.
That said, he is not all bad. If you take a supporting role of his, like the one he had in “Bumblebee,” he can do okay with the small amount of material given to him. He may not be giving an Oscar-worthy performance, but he has the ability to stand out. He was quite funny and had perhaps the best executed line in the entire film. That said, with his recent rise as the character of Peacemaker in the DCEU I thought he was turning things around. Not only did he have plenty of material to work with, but he gave a standout performance where I saw less of John Cena the personality and more of John Cena the actor. James Gunn even said that when it comes to improv, he kept more of it from John Cena than any other actor in his previous projects.
And this is why I have to say after seeing John Cena’s amazing efforts in DC’s “The Suicide Squad” and “Peacemaker,” he unfortunately takes a downward spiral in “Freelance.”
John Cena plays Mason Pettits, who had dreams of being in the military, only to have them shattered by an injury, leading him to become a lawyer instead. Now, I know being a lawyer can be a desirable gig to a number of people, but I think the movie does an okay job on the surface of trying to make Mason likable in the first couple of minutes by having his absolute dream go by the wayside, bringing him to a lowest low. But then, they introduce the fact that he is a father, has a wife who doesn’t always seem to be on the best terms with him, and this whole dynamic did not work for me. He and Alice Eve have zero chemistry together. I must add, I know that not all dads are perfect, but there is a scene early on in the film where we see Mason with his kids that was definitely supposed to come off as funny, but came off as a notion that Mason is a terrible father. He doesn’t come off like he is trying his best to be a supportive, attentive parent. The idiocy that this guy shows around his children is unfunny. Additionally, it convinces me that he should have never even procreated in the first place. The personality of John Cena’s character, both as a father, and within the context of his job, reminded me of the characters of “Wild Hogs,” a bunch of insufferable morons who want more in life, but are not likable enough for me to respect them wanting more. He comes off more as a brainless jerk than anything else. And how can you be miserable when you are married to a character played by Alice Eve? Now I have seen everything.
If there is one positive in the movie, while the film itself delivers an unfathomable injustice of a first impression, I like how they shot the film’s early moments. Much of the beginning of the film was done from a first-person perspective, which I thought was kind of creative, and almost immersive. It kind of reminded me of a fun video game. As bad as everything else in the movie is, I will admire the film for at least having the ingredients, albeit very few, that could go into making the unfathomable injustice of a first impression better than it is. First impressions are the impressions in life that matter the most regardless of the situation. So while “Freelance” did not win me over, I admire the movie’s efforts in what it was trying to do. However, there are so many things that are wrong with the movie that I cannot help but cringe just at the thought of it. The movie starts off as a story where one man is getting a second shot at a dream. It is kind of borderline action-packed, adventurous. But it also is a comedy. Meshing genres together is nothing new, but usually there is a sense of consistency when the meshing is done right. The way “Freelance” uses multiple genres is the opposite. It almost does not know what kind of movie it wants to be. And the worst part, when it comes to meshing adventure, comedy, action, and whatever other sprinkle of a genre it chooses to emulate, it does all of them poorly. I don’t mind mixed genres as long as they’re done well. If they were done well, we would have a different story on our hands. Look at “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” “Freelance” does not go as deep as that. But as an adventure, there are no thrills. As a comedy, there are no laughs. As an action flick, it misses the mark.
And the fact that this film misses the mark as an action flick is really sad, because it is directed by Pierre Morel, who also directed “Taken.” I love “Taken.” It is one of Liam Neeson’s best films. It is not surprising to know that almost every other film he has done since often tends to be compared to “Taken.” The action is great. The premise is simple, but perfect. The father-daughter relationship won me over. And that is the irony. We go from a movie like “Taken,” which even with its showcasing of notable violence, is ultimately about a father who will do anything to save his daughter. He is practically the father of the year. Granted, when it comes to “Taken” it also helps having decent writers like Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. Now several years later, we get “Freelance.” A movie starring John Cena as a father who appears to neglect important details about his kids. And if you are curious about the writer for “Freelance,” that would happen to be Jacob Lentz. He has plenty of experience in this industry. He wrote for “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for a long time, he produced a series in 2017 called “Animal Nation with Anthony Anderson.” He did a number of things. But the last writing credit he has, at least according to IMDb, is in 2012 when he did the “2012 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.” If that is true, it kind of shows here. Granted, with all this time in between, it could mean he had time to brainstorm whatever he is going to do next. But if I were brainstorming, I would have brainstormed to delete the script and never hand it out to anybody. But what do I know?
That said, I do want to be careful with what I just said. Because I recognize how hard it is to make a movie. But with a repeated process, the journey does become a bit simpler. Recognizing Jacob Lentz’s past credits, I should note that in his case, this is, unsurprisingly, his first feature film script. I respect how Lentz is making a transition from one part of the industry to another. He is trying to diversify a bit. But I think it is clear that when it comes to feature films, his skills have not quite blossomed. I do not know what his reputation is on the TV side, but I am hoping that it is better than what this movie turned out to be.
The best way I can describe “Freelance” is to say that it is this year’s “Red Notice.” When it comes to star power, it is not quite as big, but it is evident. Look at John Cena! Look at Alison Brie! Both of them are respectable, notable names given their resumes! “Freelance,” much like “Red Notice” did with Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, and Gal Gadot, ended up taking significant leads who ooze personality to the tenth degree and crush them like bugs. This movie took likable gems of people and sucked out their souls. They say I cannot see John Cena. In this case, all I see is crap.
And while I happen to know John Cena and Alison Brie more than Juan Pablo Raba, if I had to name my favorite performance in the movie, it would Raba’s performance as the dictator. He feels the genuine of the bunch, he has personality, and I thought Raba blended into the role nicely. At the end of the day, I do not love the character and I did not know what to think of him. But if I had to name a scene stealer, and this is a generous statement by the way, it would be the dictator. I honestly wanted more out of this movie. I wanted better action. I wanted better comedy. I wanted better acting. I wanted a better story. When it comes to the story, by the way, it feels like an afterthought. Sure, maybe there was a decent motivation on the protagonist’s part, but as the movie progresses, it feels like we continuously have excuses to spew lackluster action scenes, bad jokes, and uninteresting gags that may occasionally have a sexual nature. I wish I could say when it comes to “Freelance,” one watch would be enough for me. If there were a way I could watch the movie zero times, I would love to make that happen.
In the end, “Freelance” is a gig that I should have quit before I even took it on. Between “Fast X” and now this, John Cena is not having the best recent track record. While I have to think about which movie I’d rather watch more, I’m starting to think “Fast X” has more redeeming qualities. Because at least some of the action is fun to look at, and when it comes to John Cena in that movie, he is actually pretty funny. In “Freelance,” not only is he not funny. He is genuinely unlikable. There is no way I found myself latching on this character by the movie’s end. The plot is all over the place. The characters barely stand out. The events of the film are easily forgettable. There are a couple cringe-inducing moments. I cannot recommend this film to anyone. I was amazed by the Rotten Tomatoes scores for this film. Because the critic score is at a whopping 0%! Meanwhile, the audience score is sitting at 76%! The divide on this movie is not only amazing, it is jaw-dropping! Because if you must know, I side with the critics on this one. But I genuinely want to know why this movie did better with audiences. What redeeming qualities stood out to these people? Then again, like all other art, film is subjective. When it comes to my subjective thoughts, I could never subject myself to this torture ever again. I am going to give “Freelance” a 1/10.
By the way, I want to congratulate John Cena, because this is not his first time being in a movie with a 0% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. This is due to Cena having a role in the television film “FRED: The Movie,” starring character popularized through online media by Lucas Cruikshank. Congratulations, John Cena! You did it! You hit the jackpot of utter lunacy! What are the chances of this? If there is anybody that I am convinced in their lifetime will be struck by lightning twice, it might be John Cena at this point. Who knows?!
I want to tell you a true story. I ended up going to two different AMC Theaters to watch “Freelance.” I was going to buy a ticket at the first one in person, buy some food, but I ended up forgetting my wallet. That would have been fine considering I have rewards points through my Stubs membership. I had plenty to waste, and if need be, I had quarters sitting in my car, that I could use if needed. But I am an AMC A-List member. Sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, the ticket taker will ask for your ID if you use one of your A-List reservations. Considering I did not have it on my person, I made a trip home and forfeited the screening. So, I waste over an hour between going home, going back out, venturing to a different theater and using my AMC A-List reservation there to get a free ticket for “Freelance.” I wasted time, gas, and my sanity to get this review out for you guys. And you know why? Because I like you. That said, this movie was not worth the effort. “Freelance” is one of the biggest wastes of my time I had as a moviegoer. It is unfunny, unsatisfying, and unthrilling. It is one of the worst films of the year for sure.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Persian Version.” I had a chance to go see this movie a couple weeks ago. I saw the marketing sometime prior, and I have been looking forward to it. I will share my thoughts soon! Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Priscilla,” “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes,” and “The Marvels.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Freelance?” What did you think about it? Or, here is a fun question… Have you seen any movies that have earned a 0% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes? If so, tell me what you thought about them. That should be fun, right? List your thoughts down below, I would love to hear them. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! And welcome one and all to the final entry to the Ridley Scottober review series! If you want to check out my reviews for the other films in the series, such as “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World,” click the provided links and have a ball! Today we will be talking about one of my most rewatched movies in recent years, “Blade Runner.” Also, if you want to see a less professional, perhaps crappier example of my writing, I reviewed “Blade Runner 2049” back when it came out in 2017. I was less experienced, but still had a sense of a writing style of sorts. Check it out! Before we begin this review, I want to make something clear. On this blog, when I review a movie, it is typically of the initial version released in theaters or whatever platform it was designed for. With “Blade Runner,” this is no exception. For this review, I will be using the theatrical version of the film as a baseline. Maybe one day I will do my thoughts on “The Final Cut” as a separate post, which I have seen. But I am treating this movie the same way I treat just about every single other one I watch. That said, if you choose to stick around and read this review, enjoy your stay, make yourself at home, and let’s dive into one of Ridley Scott’s most talked about films.
“Blade Runner” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Duellists) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), Rutger Hauer (Nighthawks, Inside the Third Reich), Sean Young (Jane Austen in Manhattan, Stripes), and Edward James Olmos (Wolfen, Zoot Suit). This film is based on the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and centers around LAPD detective Rick Deckard as he is tasked with hunting down and retiring four Replicants who come to earth on a stolen ship in order to find their creator.
“Blade Runner” is one of those films that has had an impact on me since the first time I saw it back in 2017. In fact, this is not my first time talking about the film on this blog as I once did a post weeks after my initial viewing, talking about what the film got right about the future. Again, much like my “Blade Runner 2049” review, my quality of writing may have been a bit different at the time. Just a fair warning.
Little to my knowledge, “Blade Runner” would have a major influence on my academics. If you knew me in high school, there is a chance that you were with me in a film studies class. “Blade Runner” was the first and last feature film I ended up watching in the class given how much of the curriculum tended to use that film as a backbone of sorts. In college, I ended up choosing to study “Blade Runner” for a final project in my Television & Film Studies class. I have developed a passion for this movie, this property, and if the right people are involved, I would not mind seeing more of it. Judging by what I just said, you already know that this is going to be a positive review. If “Blade Runner” had a personality and made an effort to describe my relationship with it, it would probably channel Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part III” and say “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”
Sorry, “Blade Runner,” my days of discussing you are not over just yet.
But I cannot help it, because “Blade Runner” is a master class effort. I think it is a particularly unique film. And it has done a lot to influence many stories that came after. The film is based on Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” which a number of claim is the earliest example of cyberpunk. This sub-genre has remained popular over the years with titles across various mediums like “Akira,” “The Fifth Element,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Altered Carbon,” and “Cyberpunk 2077” just to name a few. It is easy to get lost in a good movie with proper atmosphere, and when it comes to the cyberpunk nature of “Blade Runner,” getting lost in 2019 Los Angeles, or at least what this movie makes it out to be, is as easy as pie.
One of the basic rules of filmmaking is to show, not tell. And that is going to be an ongoing theme in this review. Because everything this movie shows is remarkable. There are tons of practical effects that are beautiful to the naked eye. The production design for this film is off the charts. There are very few films that are like this one aesthetically, and I say that knowing how much cyberpunk has evolved over the years. This film released in the 1980s, a time where cars looked quite different than they do today. And when I look at the vehicles in “Blade Runner,” they definitely have a look at the time that screams futuristic, but I admire how they seem to carry a vintage charm to them. I could totally buy the design of Deckard’s spinner in the film, even if it seems to look a bit like something from the time this movie came out.
Framing-wise, this is one of the coolest-looking films I have ever seen. Despite the film claiming it is set in Los Angeles, it feels like a different kind of environment. This film, at least at the time it came out, is science fiction. There is also a bit of a film noir undertone as well. This movie’s use of the color blue throughout is vivid in my memory. The color palette always packs in a blue tone. You can see hints of bluish lighting throughout the film. And one nice little touch in the background during various scenes are the many umbrellas going about the streets. Their handles have a bluish neon glow to them, almost like Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber in the early “Star Wars” installments. Speaking of “Star Wars,” one of my favorite Easter eggs about “Blade Runner,” if you pay close attention, is that there is a building in the film that resembles the look of the Millennium Falcon, Han Solo’s ship. And to top it off, Han Solo’s respective actor, literally plays the main character of this movie!
Sticking on the topic of things that look cool, one of the most intriguing designs in the whole film is the Tyrell Skyscraper. This building is utilized throughout multiple portions of the movie, and every time I look at it, I cannot help but stare in awe and wonder. The inside is enormous and carries a robust flair to it. From the outside with the help of lights shining through the windows, it looks screensaver-worthy. I also admire how the pyramid design allows for tons of incline elevators to be put in place throughout the premises. If you know me in real life, I am a bit of an elevator geek. If I were in the “Blade Runner” universe, one of the first things I would do is go into the Tyrell Skyscraper just to ride the elevator.
But just because this movie shows all sorts of cool things, does not mean it tells all sorts of cool things. Now to be fair, the dialogue in this film is minimalistic and it is perfect. There are plenty of scenes where the characters are completely quiet or there are inklings of silence. If you watched other versions of the movie, this will not matter, but if you watch the original version, there is a chance you may remember Harrison Ford’s character, Deckard, not only serving the film as a protagonist, but as a first-person narrator. While there are moments where the narration is not that much of a big deal, there are some that overexplain what is happening, and others that ruin the visual experience of this movie. One of the highlights of this film for me, from a visual perspective, is the scene where we see Deckard and Gaff inside the spinner, flying through a darkened Los Angeles. The aerial shots really help encapsulate the beauty of the city, even with a supposed sense of gloom in its people. The problem is, the scene, which has no dialogue from the characters, also features narration from Harrison Ford that sort of overembellishes the idea of cityspeak, a mix of pre-established languages. It is not really something I would need to know or care to know on my first viewing. It honestly reminds me of when I watch certain broadcasts of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” on ABC, and Ryan Seacrest is talking up a storm as I am trying to take in the first moments of the new year. I am basically trying to hear the crowd, listen to Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York,” and feel like I am there with everyone. But much like Seacrest’s voice on those occasions, Harrison Ford’s voice is nothing more than added noise. At the end of the day, it does not do much to benefit the film. There are a couple voiceovers that do not colossally damage the experience, but there are plenty that are better left unused. This is especially true for one used towards the end of the film where a crucial character’s arc is fulfilled. We are seeing this moment play out, and I am enjoying every second. Then it is suddenly interrupted with voiceover lines from Harrison Ford that basically spitballs what is happening for the audience, instead of allowing them to take in the lesson from the narration themselves. It is kind of insulting the more I think about it.
That said, I watched a documentary on the making of this movie, “Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner.” And if you have the Blu-ray edition of “The Final Cut,” you can watch it yourself. Harrison Ford revealed not only that he thought the narration, which was added due to poor test screenings, was awful, but he ended up doing it with reluctance. Ford was contractually obligated to complete the lines, so he did what he had to do. He tried his best with the material, but he did not think it was necessary.
Though speaking of Harrison Ford giving his best effort, his performance as Rick Deckard is perfect. The character easily blends into his increasingly depressing environment. He is the kind of guy who will not take any nonsense from anyone, but also kind of has a softer side on occasion. There is nothing overblown about this character, especially when you compare him to some of Harrison Ford’s earlier performances, like those he previously gave as Han Solo. In fact, much of what makes Ford’s character believable in his environment is his tendency to remain quiet during certain scenes, which is balanced perfectly by the mannerisms of this film’s antagonist, Roy Batty.
While Harrison Ford may be the most iconic face in the movie, I think the award for best performance in this film easily goes to Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. I have no idea if Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, this film’s writers, wrote this character with any particular actor in mind, but Hauer is one of the best castings for an antagonist perhaps in the history of cinema. There is a ton of range in a character like this one. When we first see him, his execution of the film’s dialogue is quite direct and to the point. It is almost kind of robotic, which should play into the fact that he is a Replicant. But as we go through the film, there is a continued sense of humanity that develops within this character. You can hear it in his voice, and even his physicality. I said there is a balance between Batty and Deckard, and I mean that wholeheartedly. It is perfectly displayed in the film’s climax, which is not particularly the most epic of climaxes, but it is one that serves the movie to perfection. That said, while I am ultimately rooting for Deckard, I cannot help but admire Batty throughout the climax because every other line out of him sounds like a grounded cartoon. This may be weird to say, but having rewatched this film for review purposes, the dynamic between these characters in the climax almost reminds me of a father and son playing tag or chasing each other around the house. It almost feels carefree even though there are higher stakes involved. Well, that, and there are moments where Batty twists Deckard’s fingers to get revenge.
The movie also kind of ends on a weird note. Again, this is the original cut we are talking about. There is a final scene, which believe it or not, uses footage that was originally made for Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining,” it is unbelievably rushed, and kind of uneven when consider how most of the film is paced. “Blade Runner” is kind of a slow burn, and by the time we get to this scene, it kind of kicks things up a gear or two. It is really weird. Overall, it is an abrupt scene. And while I definitely prefer the more open ending offered in future versions, I think if this movie were trying to go for a more upbeat ending, they probably could have gone for a longer scene. This scene is too quick, too in your face, and appears to be the result of a last minute decision that likely was not even on Ridley Scott’s mind while making his way through much of the film’s production.
Doing this review in 2023, I realize that some of the problems I have with the movie are those that tend to bog down the original cut and eventually get changed in later versions. That said, there is one problem I have with this movie that has lingered with me for years. While I think Sean Young and Harrison Ford have fabulous chemistry together as Rachel and Deckard, and every scene delivers the best out of each actor, I am not a fan of how their love blossoms. If you can call it that. This movie is written by two men, and I am sure that if a woman were credited with the screenplay, the scene where Rachel and Deckard first embrace their love for each other would have been handled differently. Basically, Rachel is trying to leave Deckard’s residence, but before she can get out, she is barricaded by Deckard, preventing her from making an exit, and pushed to a window. The two do end up embracing each other and confirming their love for each other, but the way it happens feels for starters, unrealistic, but also, kind of unsettling. It reminds me of another movie I have rewatched several times over the years, “Revenge of the Nerds,.” In that movie, sure, Betty and Lewis end up confirming their love, or perhaps more accurately at the time, lust, for each other. But the way that initiates is from Lewis basically assaulting her if you break it down. And much like “Revenge of the Nerds,” I will not deny that “Blade Runner” has reminded me of my love for movies in one way or another. But if I had to name a standout flaw with both films, and it is a monumental one, it would be a central love connection that may seem believable in the end due to proper chemistry, but is initiated in a way that can described as off-putting and erroneous.
As mentioned, “Blade Runner” is an example of cyberpunk, which likely takes inspiration from large cityscapes, but in a way, puts them on steroids. That said, even with a somewhat over the top nature provided throughout this movie’s interpretation of Los Angeles, everything around the city in terms of the environments and characters felt completely grounded. There is rarely a moment of this movie that I could not buy. This movie also manages to insert, for the most part, believable product placement. After all, it is set in a major city, so tons of advertising is to be expected. But from the very beginning, the frame is often bombarded with neon, noise, or product acknowledgments from companies like Budweiser or Coca-Cola. Ridley Scott manages to deliver an atmosphere with “Blade Runner” that not only emits realism, but for the entire runtime, makes me feel like I am there.
Though if I had to finish this review with one thing, it is that few movies, in fact few franchises for that matter, tend to answer the question, “What is human?”, like this one. I think Roy Batty, despite being an android, is perhaps one of the greatest encapsulations of that question in the history of film. We see him from the very start of his journey wanting more life. It is established that Replicants tend to have a four-year lifespan. Obviously, most humans live a lot longer, and that is something that he is trying to achieve. But if anything, this movie shows that life is not something you should take for granted. I am 23 years old. In fact, as I am writing this review, I am going to be 24 in just over a week. This movie reminds me to enjoy the moment, even in the darkest of times. Even in a city where the rain never stops, there may be one or two moments of sunshine. This movie may be set in a depressing future, but it is one where beings tend to find inklings of joy to keep themselves busy, whether that inkling can be defined as enjoying some noodles, playing chess, or fiddling with a piano. The beauty of “Blade Runner,” despite coming off as a slow burn and a thinker film, is its simplicity. At its core, “Blade Runner” is about a cop trying to stop a group of targets before it is too late. Everything else is just a bonus, and a mighty bonus it is. Because as far as I am concerned, there is a reason why I have rewatched this film so many times over the years, because it is that good.
Oh, and to answer the often debated question amongst fans, Deckard is a Replicant.
In the end, “Blade Runner” is one of Ridley Scott’s best films, even with its flaws. Again, a lot of the flaws I have in this review did get resolved, but I imagine if I did watch “Blade Runner” back in 1982, I would be having a ball with it. Unfortunately, the film did not do too well when it came out. It polarized critics, made an underwhelming amount at the box office, and possibly suffered from studio notes. Having to compete with another excellent and successful film, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” probably did not make things any easier. Even with that in mind, the film has a lot to offer. Exciting action, likable characters, incredible story arcs, life lessons, captivating writing, stellar direction, brilliant lighting, and stunning effects that make a number of modern movies that rely on CGI pale in comparison aesthetically. I must add, Vangelis’s score is also an absolute banger. “Blade Runner” is one of the best-looking movies I have ever seen, and it is hard to believe it looks this good over forty years later. But these looks are supplemented by a narrative that did nothing more than grabbed my attention and kept it for a couple of glorious hours. I am going to give “Blade Runner” a very high 8/10.
Again, if I were reviewing “The Final Cut,” I might honestly give a higher score. But I am treating this review the same way I am treating the other ones I typically do. And if you want me to be honest with you, as much as I love the original “Blade Runner,” it feels odd to say because I have not watched it in a while, but I honestly think “Blade Runner 2049” is the superior installment. It has all the positives of the original movie, but does some things to improve on it as well. Much like the original, that is another film that I have watched incessantly. In fact it finished as my runner-up for best movie of the 2010s. And if I could go back and do my review of it again, I would give it a 10/10 if I had the chance. Few films made me escape my reality and bring me to another world like that one did. I highly recommend if it is a rainy day, do a “Blade Runner” double feature. Both movies are absolutely worth your time and are two of the finest examples of what sci-fi can be.
“Blade Runner” is now available on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available through various streaming services.
Thanks for reading this review! And I hope you enjoyed my entries to the Ridley Scottober review series! I had a lot of fun doing these. I got to check out some films I have never seen before, in addition to watching one for the umpteenth time. I had a blast doing these and I hope you had fun reading them. If you want to see more reviews, good news! I have more coming soon! I will soon share my thoughts on “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Blade Runner?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite science fiction movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy to have you all tune into this latest film review as we continue Ridley Scottober! A month-long event where I talk about four Ridley Scott-directed films, all for your reading pleasure. This is the second entry to the series, and it is an exciting one. “Gladiator.” I assure you, I was looking forward to watching this movie, and now I equally look forward to talking about it. And if you want to check out the first entry of Ridley Scottober, feel free to read my review for “Body of Lies.” But if you plan to stick around, please enjoy my thoughts on Ridley Scott’s 2000 Academy Award Best Picture winner.
“Gladiator” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Russell Crowe (The Insider, L.A. Confidential), Joaquin Phoenix (Clay Pigeons, 8MM), Connie Nielsen (The Devil’s Advocate, Rushmore), Oliver Reed (The Three Musketeers, Oliver!), Derek Jacobi (Hamlet, Dead Again), Djimon Hounsou (Deep Rising, Amistad), and Richard Harris (Unforgiven, Patriot Games). This film is set during the glory of Rome, and centers around General Maximumus Decimus Meridius, a general who becomes a slave who intends to seek revenge against those who brought him there in addition to killing his family.
I have a soft spot for Russell Crowe, but part of me does not know if I can legally say that, as I have not watched “Gladiator” until this review. Why? It is for the same reason I mentioned for “Body of Lies” in that review. I bought the Blu-ray years ago. In fact, I bought “Gladiator” almost a year before “Body of Lies,” but I just never got around to it until now. I had no vendetta against either of these movies, but one of the complications of being a movie collector is being able to sit down and watch the new films I buy because I have so many and sometimes want to revisit some favorite titles. One of the silver linings of this series and other review marathons I have done in the past like the “Mortal Kombat” films and some of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies like “At World’s End,” is that it helps me get around to titles that I have never seen before. In fact, “Gladiator” is one of those movies, much more so than “Body of Lies,” that when you bring up the fact of never seeing it, there is a chance someone will ask if you are a real movie fan.
I am a real movie fan. In fact those of you reading this questioning my moves for years should be jealous, because I am getting experience this film for the first time. Some may call it being late to the party, I call it a long-awaited ounce of excitement.
About 23 years after its release, “Gladiator” is still in many conversations as a master class film. It is #36 on the IMDb top 250. The film won five Oscars, including Best Picture. Over in Britain, it snatched four BAFTAs, including Best Film. There is plenty of proof to show how much the film has stood as a testament to the industry and the sword-and-sandal genre. But these are just the opinions of other people. There is only one opinion that matters here, and that is the one of the Movie Reviewing Moron. So, what did I think of “Gladiator?”
Sorry in advance… I am “glad” I saw it.
“Gladiator” goes to show the power of first impressions, because from the beginning, the film completely immersed me. The film has a story that showcases the glory of Rome, and the film itself carries a similar glory unto its own. There is so much going on inside the screen that it is insane. Between the humungous cast, with who knows how many extras, the beautiful showcasing of wides, and the magnificent on location sets, “Gladiator” is pleasing to the naked eye. I understand that at the time, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was kind of a big achievement in visual effects in terms of how deep they go with certain concepts, how real certain things looked for the time, but if I had to look back on both of these films now, I think “Gladiator” is the clear winner in terms of which is more attractive to the eye. I look back at “The Phantom Menace” and it sometimes looks like a video game. There have been worse looking effects, but still.
In fact, speaking of effects, there was one fight in particular that involves the use of tigers. It is easy to say because I am not the one making the film, but I kind of appreciated the film’s tendency to use real tigers. Now, I did question if the tigers were CGIed, which they partly were. They used bluescreen to make the tiger appear closer to the characters. That said, I admire how making “Gladiator” was probably about as dangerous as being a gladiator. I would have completely understood if this movie went down the full CGI route for the tigers, but the fact that they decided not to is a risk that paid off.
What also carries “Gladiator” are the performance. This is most notable with Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, an admirable protagonist. On the other hand, we have Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, an equally admirable antagonist. These two deliver two completely different vibes and mannerisms into their individual performances, but it does not change the fact that their work in this film are goldmines. Both of their deliveries are incredibly convincing. Even just their physicality, just having them stand around had me staring in awe.
But this film is much more than big fights and larger than life sets because I found myself immersed in the drama between the characters. Obviously there is the main story of Maximus trying to get his revenge, but in addition to that, I also found the family drama on Commodus’s side to quite compelling. Between how he gets his power, his relationship with his nephew, I found all of it intriguing. The film does a really good job at balancing various family, political, and personal dramas.
I will admit, having watched the film, there are parts of it that drag a little. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but in the scenes where people are talking, it is not necessarily that engaging. For the record, I can handle talking, I have no problem. But the scenes where people talk in this film are not as compelling as others, but there are select moments that positively stand out.
In fact, “Gladiator” as a film sort of reminds me, story-wise, of “Braveheart,” as it follows a someone trying to obtain their freedom, not to mention the freedom of others, within a backdrop of large sets and incredible violence. But much like “Braveheart,” as I watched the film, specifically the first 40, 45 minutes, I found myself getting bored and needing to pause the film to take a breather. For the record, I would contend that every minute of “Braveheart” is essential to the film. Much like how every minute of “Gladiator” is essential to it. But I would not deny that both films have pacing issues. Only difference, once I get past the first 45 minutes of “Braveheart,” the movie throttles heavily and gets good fast. “Gladiator” is very off and on with the pacing, but even in the slower moments, I still found myself the tiniest bit engaged. That said, having finished this film, this is one of those movies that if it were playing in a theater near me or if it got the IMAX treatment, I would go check it out. It looks like a magnificent theatrical experience. The cinematography is beautiful. The sets, again, are stunning. The sound editing and mixing are beyond powerful. Maybe if I watch this film in a theater, where I am less likely to be distracted, I would feel different than I do here. That said, the film is worth watching regardless and you absolutely should check it out if given the chance.
In the end, I get the hype for “Gladiator.” I had a good time with it. It is not my favorite of Ridley Scott’s films, and it is not even my favorite film of the early 2000s with huge sets and epic on location action. Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy started a year later. That said, it is one that if you asked me if I would watch it again, the answer would be an instant “yes.” I would probably put it on again at home, or again, if there were a chance to watch it in theaters, I would give it a chance. The cast is fantastic, the story is fascinating, and I must add that Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard’s score is mighty fine. I am going to give “Gladiator” an 8/10.
“Gladiator” is now available on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available on streaming and is free on Netflix for all subscribers as of this writing.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Gladiator” and want more Ridley Scott in your life, I have two more reviews coming in the Ridley Scottober series! One next week, followed by another the week after. Stay tuned. Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Last Duel,” Scott’s epic drama from 2021. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Gladiator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sword and sandal movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy October! Or should I say, Ridley Scottober! What is Ridley Scottober? Well, throughout the month of October, I will be reviewing four movies directed by Ridley Scott! I wanted to do this because in addition to getting one themed review done this year, I might as well prepare myself for Ridley Scott’s upcoming feature, “Napoleon,” which so far has won me over with the marketing. I cannot wait to see it. Let’s kick things off with the first review in the series, “Body of Lies,” Scott’s 2008 spy thriller.
“Body of Lies” is directed by Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Aviator), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), Mark Strong (Stardust, Babylon A.D.), Golshifteh Farahani (M for Mother, Half Moon), Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story, Law & Order: Criminal Intent), and Simon McBurney (The Golden Compass, Friends with Money). This film centers around a CIA agent named Roger Ferris, who attempts to track down a terrorist leader in Jordan.
I owned the Blu-ray for this film for almost six full years, and yet I have not watched this film for the first time until only last month. On the cover, there is a lot to like. Between Ridley Scott’s name behind the scenes, in addition to DiCaprio and Crowe’s names standing out for the talent on camera. All of these people, not just today, but even back in 2008 have proven their worth. In fact, “Body of Lies” is not the first rodeo between Scott and Crowe, as the two have worked together multiple times before, therefore it shows they have a solid business relationship. The same cannot be said for Leonardo DiCaprio, but I am sure both individuals brought plenty of promise to each other at the time of production. When you have these three names together, it equally brings a lot of promise to the audience.
Unfortunately though, while the promises of this film do not appear to be empty, they do not feel like they were entirely met. Now, these three individuals do an okay job in the film. But I cannot say that this film comes off as the pinnacle of any of their resumes. Whether we are talking about a collective or individual effort. All three have done better things before, all three have done better things after. In fact, of the Ridley Scott pictures I have seen, this is one of the more pedestrian ones he has made.
The movie is shot well, like many other Ridley Scott pictures. In fact, this was shot by Alexander Witt. This is the first proper cinematography credit in a feature film. Much of his work prior, not to mention after, was as a part of a second unit, but this time around he is on the front lines. The way the camera is used in “Body of Lies” for the most part provides for a bit of an uneasy vibe. After all, that is what the film should be beyond its surface, it is a soldier vs. terrorist sort of rivalry. “Body of Lies” is a film that at times puts you in the middle of the action, but it does not have enough oomph to make me run out on the streets and recommend this film to others. Although if there is one additional positive to point out, the color palette of this film perfectly establishes its overall atmosphere. It has this moody feel to it, but it supplies itself in such a way where everything around it still manages to pack in a tad of thrills and excitement. It was easy on the eyes.
Speaking of beginnings, I am pleased to report that this film is one of the early roles from Oscar Isaac, who I think is one of the better performers who has tended to lend himself to content within the spectrum of popular culture over the years. This is not his first role. Isaac was previously in films like “All About the Benjamins” and “The Nativity Story.” But I think this film shows how solid of an actor he was early in his career. Despite his first name, he is not on an Oscar level here, but he is one of the standouts in this film for me, which says something considering who the two leads happen to be.
This film stars Russell Crowe in addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, and when it comes to the former, it is clearly established that he is a dad. Particularly, one who is heavily involved in the lives of his young children. This allows for an ongoing gag where his character is doing things for his children all the while trying to balance work. We see him on the phone with Leonardo DiCaprio completing important calls all the while either doing something such as taking his kids somewhere or tending to them. While this is a great way to establish a character’s background, the amount of time spent exposing this feels like overkill. I do not know if they were trying to be funny with this tendency, after all this is a thriller, not a comedy. Sure, maybe if I were a parent myself, which I am not, maybe I could relate to this gag. And the more I think about it, seeing this sort of reminds me of seeing my mom taking calls over the years while I am in her presence given her line of work. But when it comes to this gag, it feels like too much delivered in my face. The phone gag feels like the one moment that the movie is going for humor. But because everything else, for the most part, comes off as serious, the only reaction I have as this is going on is silence. I am not saying this should not be in the movie, it serves a purpose as to establishing the characters, but I think it overembellishes itself at times.
The narrative, in terms of progression, character development, and concept, all get the job done. There is nothing remotely broken that I can point out about the film in terms of how everything in it is laid out story-wise. All the characters work. The chemistry works. The concept works. And that is the best way that I can sum up “Body of Lies.” It is not a film that is overly offensive. But it is also not a film that I walked out of thinking that it is a game changer. It is a film that I think some people would kill their first born child in order to have it be as good as it is. But when it comes to the reputation of Ridley Scott, who continues to be one of the more respected filmmakers working today, this feels kind of bland. There is a reason why nobody is talking about “Body of Lies” all these years later and instead bringing up other films like “Blade Runner” and “Thelma & Louise.” It’s because those films made a mark on its viewers culturally and managed to deliver something special. And yes, “Body of Lies” is exciting at times and there are moments where the intrigue is there, but it is not enough for me to say I would watch it again in the next few months. Maybe it would make for good background noise if I find it randomly on cable, but that is probably the extent of it.
If there are any other highlights I can point out, I did like the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Roger Ferris, and his love interest he meets along the way. Said love interest, Aisha, is played by Golshifteh Farahani. I thought the two had solid chemistry and every moment they were on screen together, they clicked. They probably had the best connection in the entire movie. Their bond was fun to watch.
In the end, “Body of Lies” is… Fine, I guess. When I bought the Blu-ray six years ago, I was quite intrigued to know that Ridley Scott was behind it. I was intrigued by the big names on the cover. There was a lot of potential. The potential here is not wasted, but it does not mean the film doesn’t underwhelm. There is nothing about this movie that makes me angry, but there is nothing about this movie that makes me think I should go back to it anytime soon. Ridley Scott is a respected filmmaker. And while this may be an okay movie for some people, this may not be the finest Ridley Scott movie. I am going to give “Body of Lies” a 6/10.
“Body of Lies” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming. As of this writing, it is available on Max to all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this first installment to the Ridley Scottober series, guess what? I’ve got three more coming! I don’t think the next review is gonna be on Saturday like this one. To be frank, I wanted to get this review out a little earlier, but I have had a pretty busy week. And I honestly have a busy week next week too, because I’m gonna be on vacation in New York, but I should have some time to whip something up. I’m gonna be on a train for three to four hours, so I can definitely do something. Maybe I will drop the review Thursday. I am kind of playing this series by ear at this point. But if you want to see another one of my reviews for a Ridley Scott movie I did a couple years back, check out my thoughts on “The Last Duel!” That should hold you all over for some time. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Body of Lies?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie from a respected filmmaker that you think may be one of their inferior works? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Meg 2: The Trench” is directed by Ben Wheatley (Rebecca, Free Fire) and stars Jason Statham (Furious 7, The Transporter), Wu Jing (Wolf Warrior, The Wanderers), Sophia Cai (Mr. Corman, Something Only We Know), Page Kennedy (S.W.A.T., Blue Mountain State), Segio Peris-Mencheta (Snowfall, Rambo: Last Blood), Skyler Samuels (Wizards of Waverly Place, Scream Queens), Sienna Guillory (Eragon, Resident Evil: Apocalypse), and Cliff Curtis (Avatar: The Way of Water, Fear the Walking Dead). This film is a sequel to the 2018 shark movie “The Meg” and once again centers around Jonas Taylor, who collaborates with a research team to uncover the many mysteries of a trench and the potential threats that lie within. The film is also inspired by the book “The Trench” by Steve Alten.
I got a good kick out of “The Meg” back when it came out five years ago. I did not think it reinvented shark movies, but when it comes to pure summer fun, that film was obscenely enjoyable. In fact, given how that film came out in the 2010s, the “Sharknado” franchise, which yes, are technically TV films, but still, were heavily on my mind at the time. I watched them, probably because deep down I must have liked torture. But I am kind of glad I watched the “Sharknado” films because when it comes to “The Meg,” they influenced my opinion towards the film. It feels like “The Meg” took the vibe from a “Sharknado” type of film, gave it a bigger budget, and added more pizzazz. I thought if they could keep that mentality going into the second movie, we could be in for yet another fine summer popcorn outing. I was looking forward to “Meg 2: The Trench.”
And just as I wanted, the marketing lived up to my expectations. It looked like it was going to be heavy on Jason Statham being awesome, marvelous visual spectacles, and shark action. It looked like colossal summer fun and I did not care if I ended up giving the film a barely passable score, because it did look like it would meet those terms, but it would have been one of the more memorable barely passable films I have come across if that were the case. Despite my barely passable score for the original “Meg,” I still think about it on a regular basis because I had a great experience watching it. And it actually managed to emit some shock for me in terms of its screenplay. While definitely not Shakespeare, I was pleasantly surprised as to where the movie would end up going.
When it comes to “The Meg,” that “Sharknado” comparison stands true today. Speaking of comparisons, I am happy to declare that “Meg 2: The Trench” makes “The Meg” look like “Jaws.”
Looking back, what must have tied “The Meg” together nicely is that it presents itself in a nice, solid pace. It is a pace that allows for crazy shark mayhem with some other moments to breathe in order to balance everything out. Sure, the first act is a tad dull at times, but the movie manages to work the more it builds. When it comes to “Meg 2: The Trench,” shark mayhem and moments to breathe also make their presence known, but when it comes to the faster paced shark scenes, I am not thinking about those as consistently as the moments that bored me. Maybe it is because I had, I am not going to say high, but moderate at best expectations going into this film. I really liked the first one, and even if this film barely scratches the surface of what the original delivered, it would still be a decent time. But it was not. This film is subtitled “The Trench,” but quite frankly, much of what involved the trench as the film went on made me tune out. It kind of made me sleepy. It made me fall into a trench of dreams.
And sticking with the topic of balance, when it comes to transitioning the horror aspect of “The Meg” from the franchise’s predecessor to this film, the results are not that great. The scares are cheap and uninteresting. The first film had a fine balance between action and scares. When it comes to the latter, it carries a significant absence this time around.
Despite my complaints about this movie, I will admit one positive consistency from the last film that is seen in this one happens to be the charm of Jason Statham. I am not going to pretend that Statham gives an Oscar-caliber performance or anything. In fact, in some ways, he seems to be playing a variation of himself. But when it comes to instant charm, he emits it throughout his entire time on screen. In fact, I like where they take his character when it comes to transitioning between the film’s events. Because we see he has become some sort celebrity figure because of his shark encounter. I like how the movie handles this aspect in particular.
I said “The Meg” is basically “Sharknado” if it were more down to earth and had a bigger budget. It is the kind of the thing that looks real and barely puts itself below a brain-melting threshold. “Meg 2: The Trench” honestly is what “Sharknado” would be if it were made for the big screen instead of Syfy. There are select moments in this film that jump the shark. Literally. And I am sometimes okay with an occasional whiffing away from reality every once in a while if the results are good. But in this case, they are not. There is one moment where one of the characters have to latch themselves onto a helicopter before they are executed by an explosion. By the time the explosion expands into the helicopter, part of me wonders how the fleeing individual even made it onboard. I could not believe my eyes. And that is ultimately what this movie is. A sight to behold. Except when it comes to the sights, they are not fun to look at. This film somehow looks worse than its predecessor. And that includes the trench, which I will remind you again, is in the title!
If anything, “Meg 2: The Trench” looks like an enhancement of our world, and I do not mean that in a good way. Everything in this film, and I kind of mean everything, looks too clean. All of it looks palatable, but yet it does not *feel* real. It kind of reminds me of what some people think of the “Star Wars” prequels. And unfortunately everything surrounding the shiny coat fail to make my time spent watching this film worthwhile. The screenplay and dialogue are extremely predictable at times. The supporting characters are beyond forgettable. And while this movie surprisingly has some halfway decent visual storytelling, it is also met with various scenes that did not offer any engagement. There is a lot of shark action by the end. But to be frank with you, I do not remember all of it, and to get to that shark action, you have to sit through the film equivalent of being tied to a chair with a gun to your head, and the only way you can survive is by fully reading through every word of a terms and services agreement. Between “Fast X” and now this garbage, Jason Statham is honestly not putting out his best work in 2023.
In the end, “Meg 2: The Trench” is a hot, watery mess. When it comes to shark movies, it is hard to know if we will ever see anything that surpasses “Jaws,” but with “Meg 2: The Trench,” today is not that day. If you want a halfway decent shark movie, “The Meg” is right there. Skip this one. Jason Statham is charming and there are some occasionally campy moments that can be considered fun, but they fail to match the joy of the first film. This film is dull, uninteresting, and by 2023 standards, the visual effects might not be up to par. Although that last part might be a little unfair because it is hard to match the look of “Avatar: The Way of Water.” I am going to give “Meg 2: The Trench” a 3/10.
“Meg 2: The Trench” is now playing in theaters. The film is also available to buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bottoms” and “A Haunting in Venice!” This weekend, I also plan to watch “The Creator” and “Dumb Money,” so I will have even more posts in the pipeline! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Meg 2: The Trench?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the two “Meg” installments? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Gran Turismo” is directed by Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Chappie) and stars David Harbour (Black Widow, Violent Night), Orlando Bloom (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring), Archie Madekwe (Heart of Stone, Midsommar), Darren Barnet (Love Hard, Never Have I Ever), Geri Halliwell Horner (Foggy Nation, Spice World), and Djimon Hounsou (Shazam!, Guardians of the Galaxy). This film shares its name with the well-known PlayStation-exclusive video game franchise, and centers around a group of people who organize and participate in a racing event dedicated to taking people who play “Gran Turismo” and putting them behind the wheel of real racecars. This is also based on true events.
Ever since I was a kid, I loved racing games. I grew up playing “Hot Wheels” titles on various consoles. I have racked up plenty of hours on “Mario Kart,” and “Need for Speed: Underground 2” remains one my favorite games of all time. Despite my love for the genre, I have never played “Gran Turismo.” That said, I was rather curious about this film from the getgo. Partially because we have been seeing in recent years that video game movies have been getting better, even if it is by the most minute of a difference. Recently we have had the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies, which have been decent. Despite its flaws, I had fun watching the recent “Mortal Kombat” reboot. Even with some departures from the games, that film delivered a gore factor the 1990s films did not provide. I also thought “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” while not the greatest definition of the word cinema, had glimmers of joy even if it relied on too many familiar beats. Both from a storytelling and nostalgia perspective.
The other reason why “Gran Turismo” excited me is because it was based on true events. This begs the question as to whether one should actually call this a video game-based movie, to which you can point in either direction. It is not a story based on the game itself, but it significantly uses the games to further the plot.
Speaking of the story, when it comes to “Gran Turismo,” the script is full of cliches and familiar beats. This can be a negative given the predictability factor of the film, but I sometimes say that having these beats are not always bad when you consider how they are used sometimes. If anything, “Gran Turismo” reminded me a bit of Pixar’s “Cars.” While they are not the same movie, they have similar protagonists in terms of their motivation, and both films tend to cruise down familiar roads. But the way both films do so allow for a well-executed narrative.
Speaking of cliches, one of them involves the protagonist trying to win over his love interest, and I honestly admire the way this movie goes about it. The main character is obviously on the younger side, and the way he admires his crush, at least for what we see, is through social media, specifically Instagram. I think the way this display is handled happens to be beautifully modern and kind of relatable. And by the time we get to the actual romance aspect of the film where we put two people in the same room, it is kind of cute. I like the main couple together. Archie Madekwe and Maeve Courtier-Lilley have solid chemistry.
If I have any core problems with the film, it is that it at times almost comes off as a commercial. Sure, we have seen movies in recent years that could double as commercials like “The LEGO Movie” and “Barbie,” but they did enough to make me feel like I was watching a good movie as opposed to something that was forcing me to buy something else. If the movie got me to buy a “Gran Turismo” game, that is not a problem. That is a sign that the movie is good enough to get me into the franchise. But at times, it almost serves more as a commercial for Nissan than a movie. When I was watching “Ford v Ferrari” several years ago, I did not think of it as a commercial for the Ford brand and instead I thought of it as a good story about accomplishing something monumental. Okay, well, I did buy a Ford in 2022, so… Who knows? Nevertheless, “Gran Turismo” serves as a fine story too, but I almost feel like it is trying to get me to buy a Nissan product every time the logo is shoved in my face.
Oh, and of course, this is a Sony movie, therefore Sony has plenty of product placement material for itself. In fact, there is a scene in this film that could have been all the more sentimental and charming if it were not in this movie, or if I did not know anything about product placement. There is a subplot in the film regarding the way David Harbour’s character, Jack Salter, listens to music. He uses an analog tape player, it kind of becomes a trademark for him at a point. There is a moment later in the film where Jann gives Jack a Walkman. I am all for promotion. But there comes a point where certain things cross the line. This is one of those times where the line is crossed. Thankfully though, the movie is still good enough to the point where the product placement does not bog everything down.
At its core, “Gran Turismo” is a classic underdog story. The protagonist, in this case Jann Mardenborough, wants to be a pro racer despite that idea coming off as a near impossibility. He has his doubters, including he people who recruit him to take on his dream, who are even doubted themselves for organizing their event in the first place. Just to be clear, other than mini golf, I have never gone golfing in my entire life. And let’s face it, just because I can hold my own in Wii Sports golf does not mean I will be joining the PGA anytime soon. But if there is one thing I love about the movie “Gran Turismo,” it shows that maybe video games do not rot the brain in a way that a lot of people suggest. Because the idea behind the program this movie revolves around is to take people who professionally play one of the most realistic racing simulators and put them in real racing machines. One thing I remember about being a kid is that I played a lot of NBA 2K. In conjunction with that, I would also shoot a lot of hoops on a court across the street from my house. Looking back, I feel that because I often did one of those things, I kept doing the other, and vice versa.
If I have to be real, I was never once bored with “Gran Turismo.” Even in moments where I felt like I was watching a film I probably could have come across years ago, I had a blast. When it comes to racing films, this is not the pinnacle of the concept, but it certainly drags miles ahead of what “Fast & Furious” has been doing lately. It is full of good performances across the board. David Harbour in particular shines as Jack Salter. The race scenes are often exciting and thrilling. By the end, I was rooting for Jann. I was hoping he would succeed. If “Gran Turismo” counts as a video game movie, I guess you can say it is one of the better video game movies out there.
In the end, “Gran Turismo” is one of the better films released over the summer. I think as far as the PlayStation-inspired films go, this is definitely a step up from “Uncharted.” If we keep getting some movies from PlayStation Productions that are on this level, or higher, they are heading in the right direction. That said, if this trend were to continue, I hope that we would get less of Sony’s product placement up the wazoo. That would have to be my biggest distraction in an otherwise solid movie. I am not entirely against product placement. Even some of the better Sony movies in recent years like “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” and even more recently, “Bullet Train,” feature Sony products in what could also be described as a commercialistic manner. But I don’t usually think about that when I think of those movies. Because those movies are good enough to the point where the product placement does not distract me, and even when it happens, it does not feel like it is in my face. I get it, money talks. But there is a drawing line. This is the same reason why I ended up hating “Space Jam: A New Legacy” a couple years back. I am going to give “Gran Turismo” a 7/10.
“Gran Turismo” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Meg 2: The Trench,” “Bottoms,” and “A Haunting in Venice.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Gran Turismo?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a way that video games have influenced your life? It can be positive or negative, either way works. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Blue Beetle” is directed by Ángel Manuel Soto (Charm City Kings, Menudo: Forever Young) and stars Xolo Maridueña (Parenthood, Cobra Kai), Adriana Barraza (Babel, Drag Me to Hell), Damian Alcazar (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Narcos), Bruna Marquezine (En Familia, Breaking Through), Raoul Trujillo (Apocolypto, Sicario), Susan Sarandon (Thelma & Louise, The Rocky Horror Picture Show), and George Lopez (George Lopez, Rio). This film is about Jaime Reyes, a recent college grad who is given powers courtesy of an alien scarab. Now in possession of his newfound abilities, he must use his new tricks to save his family, and the world.
Comic book movie fatigue… They are the three words that a plethora of people watching entertainment appear to spew every now and again, until it suddenly goes away. As for myself, I can say it is something I have never experienced. I have loved comic book movies ever since I was a kid, and I continue to do so today. Even if a talented filmmaker like Martin Scorsese calls them theme parks, it has not stopped me from endorsing them. In fact, throughout the decade, we have gotten a couple bangers like “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” In fact, just this year, we saw “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” which is now in contention to be amongst my top 5, if not top 3, comic book movies of all time. It is a one of a kind, game-changing, and earth-shattering addition to the genre. It has a certain kind of specialty to it that I have not witnessed in years. Despite being spoiled with “Across the Spider-Verse” recently, which somehow surpassed my monumental expectations, I will say “Blue Beetle” on the other hand had me less interested going into it.
Now let me be clear, I have seen every DCEU movie thus far. Everything from “Man of Steel” to “Birds of Prey.” I even saw “Wonder Woman 1984” in theaters. I even saw the last two that I have come to realize a lot of people ended up skipping. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” and “The Flash.” And honestly, both movies are quite good. They’re nowhere near perfect, but they delivered plenty of joy, brought some cool action to the table, and I had a lot of fun watching both. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” definitely had its cliches, but I still had a blast watching it. “The Flash” had a well executed story, a great protagonist, and a couple clever sequences. Admittedly, I kind of understand why “The Flash” did not do well for the most part. If you skipped the movie because of Ezra Miller, I am not going to hold that against you. It is the same thing I said about “West Side Story” when it comes to Ansel Elgort at the time. That said, Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” is excellent and has my full endorsement. You absolutely should watch it if you have not done so already.
But I imagine part of why DCEU movies have not done so well recently can contribute to a number of factors in addition the recent Ezra Miller shenanigans. Less than stellar marketing. Interesting release date choices. Underusing core characters like Batman and Superman. Making some movies rated R, therefore excluding the younger audience. Although given how it gave us “The Suicide Squad,” I have no complaints.
From the beginning, audiences lost their trust in the brand early. I liked a lot of the DCEU, but it does not change the fact that most of these movies play second fiddle to the MCU, which has defined comic book cinema for years. Since the pandemic started, every single one of these movies underperformed at the box office to some degree (granted, some went straight to HBO Max). Even “Black Adam” ended up making less money than I would have expected. But can “Blue Beetle” change things or is it too little too late?
Well… Given how James Gunn and Peter Safran are going to hit the reset button pretty soon I think the latter may be the more definitive answer in this case. But in reality, if you want to know my thoughts on “Blue Beetle,” I walked out of the movie having a good time. Much like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” this definitely relies on known beats to further things along. But as I have said about certain films, familiar things can work if they are done well, and that is the case with “Blue Beetle.”
The story and the rivalry it forms feels very been there done that. Basically, someone is creating an advanced machine that can potentially be utilized for war, and now it has to be stopped before things get out of hand. The technology of interest from Kord Industries in this film felt very much like something from Stark Industries. But what makes this giant tech company work is the protagonist’s developed connection to it.
After all, Jaime is a recent college grad. As someone who graduated college in the past year and a half, I found myself in a somewhat similar rut to Jaime at this point of his life. Basically, now that college is over, he is trying to find a job, but he cannot get anything no matter how hard he tries. That was my life for an extended period until I found myself in a couple positions right now that I am happy with. One of my favorite lines in this film is something I have always wondered on my job search. Jaime at one point asks how he is going to get experience if no one is going to give him a job. It is honestly one of the most relatable sentences I have ever heard. How can one prove themselves if they are never given the chance to do so?
One of the reasons why I was somewhat worried. Not completely worried, but somewhat worried, about “Blue Beetle” is that prior to the release of the film, it was announced that the film would go straight to HBO Max, or Max as it is now called. That was also going to be the case for a “Batgirl” movie starring Leslie Grace, which eventually got scrapped. As much as I am not a fan of the way certain things have been handled at Warner Bros. recently under David Zaslav, I will defend the scrapping of “Batgirl” because I worry its release would have done more harm than good for DC, which is already somewhat weak in the public eye to a certain degree. On the other hand, “Blue Beetle” got promoted to a theatrical release. The way all movies should be shown in my opinion… But this had me weary about the overall look of the film. Would it look too artificial? Too fake? Would the CGI look like something from many years ago?
Thankfully, that is not the case. In fact, I think of all the DC movies that have come out this year, “Blue Beetle” may be the best looking of all of them. I can drop a compliment for all the DCEU titles and their looks this year. I even thought “The Flash” looked okay at times, but I think there are a few moments of painfully obvious CGI or green screen. But this film is colorful, bright, and has a lively feel to it at all times. It does not look like a straight to streaming title, which may be a small part of why it got promoted in the first place. Like many entries of the comic book movie genre, there are some occasionally obvious effects, but even those are not dealbreakers. They never took me out of the movie. But the ultimate question is… Does “Blue Beetle” look like it was made for television? That would be a no. I have seen better looking movies of this caliber, but I have also seen worse. That said, I am not going to pretend this is on the level of “Avengers: Endgame.”
Again, when it comes to the comic book movie genre, I think it is obvious that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is king when it comes to that market. But I would say even their better movies like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Doctor Strange” fall by the wayside when it comes to the villain. One of the more prominent positives I have with “Blue Beetle” is the fact that the villain is actually kind of intimidating. Susan Sarandon does a pretty good job with the material given to her as Victoria Kord. Granted, if I had one complaint about her it is that she does emit some nearly one-dimensional mustache-twirly vibes every once in a while. Yet with that in mind, she still plays the part perfectly. But first impressions often matter in movie, and I knew from the very beginning, through decent on-screen execution, that I was not supposed to like this character.
Ultimately, it is the antagonist’s intimidation in this film that only makes the protagonist’s journey all the more exciting. I enjoyed watching Xolo Maridueña not only as the Blue Beetle in action, but as his other self, Jaime Reyes. A foundation of a lot of great comic book superheroes are the people behind the mask, and that is why despite the vast number of Spider-Man stories we have seen over the years, I will not deny the instant charm of Peter Parker, no matter who is playing him. Well… Okay, I don’t think Andrew Garfield truly shined as his Peter persona until “No Way Home.” But what makes Reyes work is that classic superhero/personal life balance that suddenly enters his life. While he is busy following his task of saving the world, he also has his family, he has a new love interest, he has to find a career. But balancing all of that becomes a bit harder with his newfound responsibilities. The marketing of “Blue Beetle” very much forwards the notion that the protagonist does not want to be in the situation he finds himself in. While in some cases it may not be exciting to have a protagonist who wants to avert from adventure, “Blue Beetle” makes it work to the best of its ability. Going back to Peter Parker, he makes the choice to be who he is because his mentor dies. He chose the superhero life. With Jaime Reyes, the superhero life chose him before he could turn back. Sure, Reyes took his responsibility into his own hands, and despite some initial aversion, he may have found glimmers of fun in his journey, but his resistance to his powers become a driving force throughout the much of the film. This whole idea is kind of relatable. If I suddenly became a superhero, awesome. I would love to fly around in the air and wave hi to people on a plane. But if that power came with some extra outside factors, I would like to know about them before going any further.
As for other standouts in the film, I would have to say I really enjoyed Reyes’s family. All of them are well portrayed by their respective actors, well-written, and by the end of the film, they kind of gave me the same joy that I got from say the Parrs in “The Incredibles.” This may also feel kind of gimmicky, but I always enjoy seeing an elderly woman, in this movie’s case, the character of Nana, wielding a machine gun and going to town with it, which does happen by the film’s end. The film has some genuinely fun, joyous moments, and I left the cinema with a smile on my face. While it may not be the next “Anchorman,” “Blue Beetle” has some funny moments in it as well.
As a comic book movie, “Blue Beetle,” like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” kind of scratches the surface and relies on some familiar beats. But I will not lie and say that they made for a well-structured, well-paced, and entertaining story. I even enjoyed the climax of the film, which does feel a bit familiar, but it ends in such a way where I admired the thinking of the characters in the situation. Speaking of the characters, all of them emit charm and come off as people I would want to hang out with.
In the end, “Blue Beetle” is a really good time. This movie honestly deserves to do better than it is doing right now. As of this writing, the film’s box office total has surpassed its budget. That said, it probably would need to make anywhere around two to three times that to break even. I am not going to pretend I am loving everything Warner Brothers is up to right now, but I am always happy to see when a film I like succeeds. But if you want a great movie to watch about a compelling family with a fascinating hero in the center of it all, I recommend “Blue Beetle.” I think of the DC movies that have come out this year, this is my favorite one they have done. It is a far cry from my favorite DCEU entry, “The Suicide Squad,” but if you are looking for something to watch in the theater right now, this is a solid option. It might even be good to watch with family. There is one intense scene that may be hard to watch, but other than that, this is a fine family movie night option. I am going to give “Blue Beetle” a 7/10.
“Blue Beetle” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Speaking of intense movie moments that may be hard to watch with your family, my next review is going to be for the brand new R-rated comedy “Strays.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Gran Turismo,” “Meg 2: The Trench,” and “Bottoms!” 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 “Blue Beetle?” What did you think about it? Or would you want superpowers? Why or why not? And if you do want them, which would you like to have if you could only choose one? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” is directed by Jeff Rowe and stars Micah Abbey (Cousins for Life, Grey’s Anatomy), Shamon Brown Jr. (The Chi), Nicolas Cantu (The Amazing World of Gumball, Sofia the First), Brady Noon (Boardwalk Empire, Good Boys), Ayo Edebiri (Big Mouth, The Bear), Maya Rudolph (The Mitchells vs. the Machines, Saturday Night Live), John Cena (Peacemaker, Blockers), Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party), Rose Byrne (Neighbors, X-Men: First Class), Natasia Demetriou (The Cuphead Show!, What We Do in the Shadows), Giancarlo Esposito (Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, Harley Quinn), Jackie Chan (Snake in the Eagle’s Shadow, Drunken Master), Ice Cube (Ride Along, xXx: State of the Union), Paul Rudd (Ant-Man, Dinner for Schmucks), and Hannibal Buress (Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Eric Andre Show). This film is the latest incarnation of the “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” property. In this film, the four turtles must earn the love of New York City while taking down an army of mutants.
I will be real. “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” has never been my thing. I am not knocking on the franchise, it is just something I never got into for one reason or another. I never grew up with it, I never watched any of the shows or movies, I never read the comic material, so I never gave it a solid chance. I did watch an episode of the 2012 television series at someone’s house, but I was not in control of the television. When it comes to this latest attempt at revitalizing the property, I was not sure what to think other than to hope whatever was in front of me would be good. I did not have much to compare this to, so all I could wish for is that I would walk out not regretting my purchase. To be honest, I almost did not even see this movie. My friend wanted to see it, and of course, seeing more movies means more reviews, so he and I went together.
The big question is, did I have a good time?
Sure. I would say so.
Despite my good time, however, this does not mean the film is free from problems. The biggest problem with this film that comes to mind is that it spends way too much time expositing certain things in perhaps the most forced ways one could imagine. The way this movie introduces Baxter Stockman allows for the inclusion of some of the most on the nose lines I have heard in recent memory. We spend more time getting to know the characters through what they say as opposed to what they think, how they feel, how they emote. Now I imagine some people will say that this is a movie for kids. And yes, this movie is definitely something that could be enjoyed by kids. Perhaps primarily so. But I always say that if you want your movie to age well, tell your story with kids in mind, but do so in a way that treats them as if they were watching something adult. I just recently rewatched “The Incredibles” and I was in awe of how much that movie respects its audience all the way through. It has such a natural flow in how it tells its story that has made the film age like a fine wine. I imagine that kids watching “Mutant Mayhem” today may end up watching it again after it hits streaming and DVD. A lot of kids will end up enjoying the film, but the question is, how will they view the film once they become adults? That is something I would like to see put to the test.
And I am not saying that the film does not work. Again, it is good. Not great, but good. I think one of the things this film handles well is the teenage aspect of its characters. Their problems feel like situations a lot of people would come by during their teenage years. Whether it has to do with anxiety, confusion over one’s identity, or wanting to fit in. While those last two concepts, specifically for the turtles, are handled in a way most humans probably would never experience, they nevertheless feel down to earth. When it comes to anxiety, that is something that is particularly handled well with the character of April O’Neil, her arc in this film may be my favorite of all the characters. Overall, the buildup was great, and I was excited to see the payoff eventually come into play.
But even with that in mind, the script does not reinvent the wheel. The story beats are sometimes overwhelmingly familiar. What happens in the movie can occasionally come off as predictable. And if they just toned down on the exposition just a little, the whole movie would have been a slightly easier, less irritating watch. That said, it is still an easy watch in some ways. It has a short runtime that flies by. Even with my problems, I never found the movie outright boring. From start to finish, I would say I was entertained.
Despite this film’s tendency to follow a formulaic path with been there done that methods of storytelling, I will say some of the writing is pretty solid. Not all of it works, but the jokes in the film are not bad. My favorite joke in particular, and I am not from the area, but I appreciated this movie’s balls to have a character say that Staten Island is “the best borough” in all of metropolitan New York. I have never been to Staten Island, but I know enough about it to laugh whenever I hear someone say what they just said. “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” has plenty of great humor. But it also has jokes that may as well have been stolen from a rejected “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie. But part of what makes these jokes click sometimes would be the chemistry between the cast. One of the neat things about the turtles in this film is that they are played by actual teenagers. In fact, the oldest of the bunch, Nicolas Cantu, turns 20 in less than a week as of this review. There is not only a sense of authenticity amongst the four characters, but when it comes to the people chosen to play them, there is camaraderie.
I also admire this film’s approach in its animation. I imagine a lot of people would say this film as an animation style that reminds them of the past couple “Spider-Verse” movies. In some ways, I would say that is true. It has this 2D feel to it that still emits a modern 3D vibe. But one thing that separates this film from those “Spider-Verse” movies, and I am not saying this is better, just to make myself clear, is that the film intentionally presents a certain messiness to its animation. It is certainly a unique approach that works at times for this film. I don’t know if I want to see it in every animated movie going forward, but for the way this film is executed, it seemed to work just fine. In fact, the way I can describe the animation for “Mutant Mayhem” is also a perfect way to describe the movie itself. It is all over the place. In one moment, it hits. In another moment, it becomes somewhat messy. I am not doubting that quite a bit of effort was put into animating this film. But at the end of the day, I wish that the crew tried as hard to make a story as fresh and exciting as its unusual visual style. If that were done, then this movie possibly could have been better. Instead, it is settling for a passable, but still somewhat lackluster experience. At least for me.
In the end, I will not doubt that “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” will find its fans. I will not doubt that kids may end up watching it multiple times. I will not doubt that some longtime fans will appreciate it too. But I was a semi-virgin of the franchise before watching this film, and as a newcomer, I do not think this is the introduction that would have made me want to continue exploring what else it contains. I would say “Mutant Mayhem” is on the same level as “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” It plays things safe, but nevertheless has some good moments sprinkled in from start to finish. Based on this, I am going to give “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” a 6/10.
“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I will have my thoughts on “Talk to Me,” “Blue Beetle,” “Strays,” “Gran Turismo,” “Meg 2: The Trench,” and “Bottoms.” 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 “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem?” What did you think about it? Or, are you a “TMNT” fan? What do you recommend from the franchise? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 