Adventure | Scene Before

A Minecraft Movie (2025): Chicken Schlocky

“A Minecraft Movie” is directed by Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite, Nacho Libre) and stars Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Slumberland), Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Danielle Brooks (Peacemaker, Orange is the New Black), Emma Myers (A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder, Wednesday), Sebastian Hansen (Lisey’s Story, Just Mercy), and Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, The White Lotus). This film is based on the “Minecraft” video game and is about a group of people who find themselves inside the mysterious “Overworld.” Together, they must use their imaginations to survive and make it back home.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. – © Warner Bros.

If there is a movie coming out this year I could not possibly be less excited about, it is “A Minecraft Movie.” I have never played “Minecraft.” However, I have seen tons of gameplay of it either through family, friends, or on YouTube when I am looking for something to fall asleep to. The game came out just before I was a teenager, but I was never one of the cool kids playing it. It was never my thing. If I were to play a building game as a kid, chances are it would have been “Mall Tycoon.”

In fact, I largely avoided “A Minecraft Movie” when it first came out due to competition. I wanted to see “The Luckiest Man in America,” which came out the same weekend. I still had not seen “Novocaine.” I was lucky to catch it in theaters while I still could. I ended up seeing “A Minecraft Movie” a couple weeks into its run with a friend of mine, who is clearly more into the game than I. Frankly, they seem to be much more into the movie than I as well. Whereas they seemed to be having a ball with everything in front of them, I was cringing beyond belief.

While video game adaptations seem to be getting better with movies like “Sonic the Hedgehog” and TV shows like “The Last of Us,” “A Minecraft Movie” fails to meet the standards of those two projects. Heck, even “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” one of the most by the numbers hero’s journey stories in years, was more memorable. Granted, unlike “A Minecraft Movie,” I actually played the “Super Mario” games. So there could be some bias.

Thankfully though, this adaptation is a slight improvement over last year’s “Borderlands,” which despite a decent cast, is an intolerable mess. Aside from being bad, “Borderlands” and “A Minecraft Movie” share some similarities. As much as I was not a fan of the way both films are presented through their artificial-looking backdrops, they do seem to implement some key elements from their respective games. “A Minecraft Movie” is full of blocky textures, from buildings to weapons to even some of the characters. It does not change the fact that some of these textures fail to please the eye. The movie sometimes presents its Overworld as a place of wonder, but I never felt that as a viewer. It had an uncanny valley effect at times. It felt like something inside “Ready Player One,” except in that film’s virtual world, just about everything was distinctly animated whereas the Overworld often serves as a hybrid between live-action and animation. I questioned the filmmakers’ decision from the start to make this film live-action, and seeing some of the Overworld on screen makes me feel justified for reacting the way I did. What were they thinking?!

I am not a huge fan of the blocky graphics “Minecraft” tends to use in their games, but they are still undeniably unique. If you presented “Minecraft” to someone in the 1990s who was in the middle of playing “Super Mario 64,” and say this is coming out more than a decade later, they could think that video game graphics regressed heavily over the years. But the graphics are still a part of the “Minecraft” brand. I understand this is an adaptation, but the movie just looks off-putting. If I had one positive, if we are going by symbolism, the contrast between the people from the real world and the Overworld is distinct. Perhaps this distinction is an artistic choice. But if I want art, I will simply go watch paint dry.

Going back to “Borderlands,” another similarity that film has with “A Minecraft Movie” is that Jack Black appears in both projects. And just like “Borderlands,” Jack Black basically plays a cartoon. In some ways, Jack Black’s character, Steve, reminds me of my dad. He is pretty expressive, spends lots of time building things, and sings during the most random occasions. Although unlike my dad, I found Steve’s singing to be annoying and nonsensical. There are multiple instances where Steve sings. Not all of them impressed me. There is one song towards the film’s conclusion that I found mildly decent, but other than that, they were headache-inducing.

By the way, I have no idea how many people would be surprised by this, Steve is not exactly what one would call the main character of this film. Sure, the film is sometimes presented from his first-person perspective, but there is also a huge gap where he basically disappears. So, the question is, who is the main character?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The film starts with Steve yearning for the mines and later discovering the Overworld, until we eventually spend some time in the real world with a couple young adults, a retro gamer, a realtor, and some other faces.

In the real world, much of the screen time is dedicated to the young adults, who happen to be a brother-sister duo. The sister, Natalie (left) is raising her brother, Henry (right center) while trying to hold a job at a chip factory. The brother means well, but his creative mind seems to get him in trouble. If you were to break this movie down structurally, one can argue the brother is the main character as his arc tends to show him being creative and embarrassing himself in the real world, but having much better luck with such creativity in the Overworld. By the film’s conclusion, the script tries to implement an epilogue for each character, but sometimes they feel half-baked based on the little substance their characters are given during the runtime.

Sticking to the real world, there are a couple characters who come from there who caught my attention from their first appearance – Jason Momoa as Garret Garrison (right), and Jennifer Coolidge as Vice Principal Marlene.

I said earlier that Jack Black basically plays a cartoon, but whereas his performance felt overdone, Jason Momoa had an animated energy that kept me captivated. He plays a game store owner who endlessly brags about a particular accomplishment he made in his career, but ultimately, he comes off as a has-been. Momoa gives 110% with every line, no matter how idiotic.

Then you have Jennifer Coolidge’s character. She is not in the movie for long, but by the end, she is unhinged. I am not going to pretend her character was perfect. In fact, you could almost write Coolidge out of the film entirely and it would have little to no real effect on the main story. Does it change the fact that her material was mildly entertaining? No. I will admit, Coolidge oozed personality at times. I will also note that this is a film mainly aimed at children, but Coolidge’s character does utter some mature phrases and act out some equally mature scenarios. I think the teenagers might understand what she is doing. The children? Hard to say. Hard to know in this digital age.

“A Minecraft Movie” has five writers. This film is the textbook definition of too many cooks in the kitchen. Again, when it comes to naming a main character, the film is almost confused in who that ultimately is. Maybe I would be more forgiving if all the characters were likable, but several of them were dull or flat out irritating to watch. By the film’s conclusion, the atmosphere honestly feels as bloated as one of the Michael Bay “Transformers” movies.

My experience of watching “A Minecraft Movie” reminded me of when I saw “Avengers: Infinity War” in the theater for the first time. During both screenings, there was no shortage of people applauding and cheering at various points. Although there is a difference between the two experiences. The age range for my “Infinity War” screening skewed more adult, whereas “A Minecraft Movie” had noticeably more kids. I was also not one of the people cheering. Granted, some of the applause breaks were for in-game references, which I would not fully understand anyway. I was not the target audience for those jokes. But one reason why I was not applauding as much as the people around me is because I was not as engaged as they were with the film. I wonder if I would be clapping more if I played the game. I wish I could share the same passion about this film that seemed to be beaming throughout the rest of the auditorium, but I was bored. There is no way around it.

Although I will say, even though my audience seemed to applaud at certain points either out of pure contagion or simply for the sake of doing so, one positive thing about my experience is that no one threw food. On that note, “Chicken Jockey” got a lot of fanfare.

With that in mind, it leads me to something I typically say about movies. Just because the children end up liking it, does not automatically indicate that I had equally as positive of an experience and will therefore give the movie a positive score. There are good movies that are “made for kids.” “A Minecraft Movie” is not one of them. Go watch a Pixar movie or a Studio Ghibli movie if you want a fine example of masterclass visual storytelling. This is just visual noise. Heck, if you want a great commercialized film that kids and adults can enjoy, go watch “The LEGO Movie!” Who would have thought a movie on plastic building blocks would become a beloved hit? Go watch “A Minecraft Movie” and “The LEGO Movie” back to back and tell me which one you think is better. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

In the end, there is not enough TNT in the Overworld to destroy my memories of experiencing “A Minecraft Movie.” This is a film that I imagine that the people making it will probably be happy to have on their resume, likely because it was popular, and not necessarily because it was good. If you are looking for cinema, look elsewhere. This is not the worst video game movie of all time. I just find a lot of choices in the final product to be questionable. Everything from casting Jack Black as Steve to the uncanny valley-esque live-action style choice to the paint by numbers narrative. I do not play the “Minecraft” game that much. It does not interest me. But I imagine I could have a more pleasant hour and a half playing the game as opposed to watching the movie that it inspired. I am going to give “A Minecraft Movie” a 3/10.

“A Minecraft Movie” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” “Rust,” “The Ruse,” and “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” 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 “A Minecraft Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever played “Minecraft?” Is it fun? Let me know down below! Scene Before is click to the flicks!

Mickey 17 (2025): More Robert Pattinsons Means More Fun in Bong Joon Ho’s Latest Movie

Posted on April 18 by Jack Drees

“Mickey 17” is directed by Bong Joon Ho (Parasite, Okja) and stars Robert Pattinson (The Batman, Tenet), Naomi Ackie (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Master of None), Steven Yeun (The Walking Dead, Minari), Toni Collette (Knives Out, Hereditary), and Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers, Dark Waters). This film is set during a group’s mission to colonize a planet and mainly follows the journey of a disposable employee who we see living his 17th life.

I have waited desperately for the day I could watch “Mickey 17.” As a science fiction fanatic, this film looked like my jam. It had a clever concept, intriguing cast, and it was helmed by Bong Joon Ho, whose previous film became the Academy’s first Best Picture recipient not made specifically in the United States. I have a feeling that if this film were in the hands of, say a first time director, it might still sell me, but Bong Joon Ho’s involvement basically put me over the edge.

Is “Mickey 17” likely going to follow in the footsteps of “Parasite” and win Best Picture next year? It is still too early to say, but I would assume that to be a “no.” Although if the Academy Awards were tomorrow, I could see the film at least being nominated. That said, it is not for everyone. The film has heavy commentary, but also happens to cross a line to where it can be silly. If Bong Joon Ho did not direct this movie, I would have been convinced that this was a Taika Waititi film in the style of “Jojo Rabbit,” which seamlessly blends comedy and drama despite the movie sometimes falling into an extreme on one side or the other.

The movie has Robert Pattinson playing a character who we get to see repeatedly die, sometimes in brutal ways. That is something to put on the more comedic side of the spectrum. Yet on the dramatic side, the movie uses this disposable character as a foundation for highlighting the human condition.

Going back to comedy, this movie also has Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette playing a couple who tend to be more concerned with blood spilling on their carpet as opposed to having someone die on said carpet. At the same time, on the dramatic end, the narrative also shows how people with prominence or power can affect the way people think.

There are multiple adjectives I could use to describe “Mickey 17.” Fun, brisk, grand, ambitious… I was not expecting “horny” to be one of those adjectives. At times, the vibe of this film reminded me of the 2021 flick “Voyagers,” which like this film, is mainly set in a spaceship with a decent amount of characters. The films have their differences, one of them being that “Mickey 17” is much more watchable. Although one similarity the two movies have is that they feature characters or storylines that have something to do with sexuality and urges. The movie features a sizzling connection between Robert Pattinson’s Mickey variants and a security agent named Nasha (Ackie) for example. This movie is about a group’s journey to colonize a new planet, and the individual at the forefront of this mission is politician Kenneth Marshall (Ruffalo) who early on, gives this dramatic speech to an audience encouraging them to “spread their seed” upon their arrival.

This is Bong Joon Ho’s first feature film following the Oscar Best Picture winner “Parasite.” While the film itself is not on the same level as “Parasite,” there are some scenes from “Mickey 17” that made me shake in the same way I did watching the former. “Mickey 17” has a halfway decent amount of unpredictability, but nothing as out of left field as “Parasite.” The structure of the film feels familiar, but it is done in a way where certain moments feel fresh or one of a kind. Much like “Parasite,” “Mickey 17” does a good job at handling commentary. Sometimes it is a little on the nose, but it is still decently delivered. For example, there is a scene early on where we notice a massive sea of supporters for Kenneth Marshall, a politician this movie clearly paints as the antagonist, and a fair amount of those supporters are wearing red hats. Sound familiar? If not, then maybe this movie will have to try harder and make commentary great again.

I can get by the not so subtle commentary because despite it being played up, it does feel reminiscent of current times. In fact, it only feels more on the nose by coincidence considering who was elected President in the U.S. before this film came out. The true test however is to see how the film ages with the world’s political landscapes. That said, society is not perfect. So odds are this film could age decently.

Tonally, “Mickey 17” is an enigma. It is certainly unconventional, but I kind of love it. That said, I could see some people comparing this film to a Saturday morning cartoon at certain points. Aside from that, there is not a ton else that bothers me in the film aside from the fact that some of the effects look fake. The exterior of the spaceship looks like something out of a TV series. That bothered me in the marketing for this movie. When I saw that spaceship for the first time, I thought I was watching an animation. That gripe remains in the final product. Many of the effects in this film look okay, but that spaceship stood out to me. I will not doubt that a lot of work was put into the CGI, but the film’s budget is at least $118 million. It could definitely be more expensive, but for that much money, I sometimes expected something a little more polished.

I am curious to know how this film will do with general audiences. For science fiction nerds like myself, this film is a complete and total blast. I think some casual moviegoers will be riveted by the film’s spectacle, and they will also enjoy seeing Robert Pattinson give it his all in two roles. Bong Joon Ho has had a prominent boost in the past number of years, and “Mickey 17” will likely garner certain people’s attention in my country, the U.S., since the film is in English, unlike his previous outing. But I am not sure if this film is going to have the spark to bring everyone together. Plus, again, I will mention that Mark Ruffalo is essentially playing a Donald Trump wannabe. Should word of that spread around just enough, I can imagine more people wanting to give their hard earned money to something else that will feel more like an escape. Although if I am being honest with you, this film is kind of an escape. The film took me to space, and I found it to be a fine journey. I give the movie a recommendation.

In the end, “Mickey 17” is an experience that is going to stick with me for a long time. This movie is grounded yet wonderfully odd. It is full of tiny, admirable quirks. The performances are to die for. Everyone is great in this film. Mark Ruffalo, Robert Pattinson of course. But if I had to name a favorite, I would have to say Toni Collette takes the cake. By the end of the film, I loved her simply because of how fiendish this film makes her out to be. She is very well directed. “Mickey 17” is another win for Bong Joon Ho and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“Mickey 17” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I keep beating a dead horse, but I apologize if I am behind on my reviews. The truth is, I am most definitely behind. I have been busy. I am still catching up on posting about the movies I watched while making the 7th Annual Jack Awards. A ceremony which by the way, you should totally check out. Here are some of the reviews you can expect going forward, and I have seen all these movies by the way. Coming soon, you can read my thoughts on “Locked,” “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” “Novocaine,” “The Ballad of Wallis Island,” “Secret Mall Apartment,” and “A Minecraft Movie.”

I cannot wait for you to see my reviews on all these movies. No, seriously. I have been putting these off for quite some time so I cannot wait any longer. And you can be notified about these reviews as soon as they drop. Please follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account, and be sure to check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mickey 17?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Bong Joon Ho film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Paddington in Peru (2024): This Bear’s Still Got It

Posted on February 27 by Jack Drees

“Paddington in Peru” is directed by Dougal Wilson and this is his feature film debut. The film stars Hugh Bonneville (The Monuments Men, Downton Abbey), Emily Mortimer (The Pink Panther, The Newsroom), Julie Waters (Mamma Mia!, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone), Jim Broadbent (Bridget Jones’s Diary, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), Carla Tous (30 Coins, El hombre del saco), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), and Ben Whislaw (Skyfall, Fargo). This film is the third installment to the “Paddington” film franchise, where Ben Whislaw once again voices the title character. The film dives into Paddington’s adventurous journey to reunite with his Aunt Lucy, who now lives at the home for retired bears in Peru.

Two similar phrases I notice myself use sometimes as a film fan are “better than it should be” or “better than it has any right being.” Those two phrases very much apply to the current “Paddington” movies. Sure, these movies might appeal to kids, but just like I often say about Pixar titles, they are presented in such a way where they also have a lot for adults to enjoy. I watched both “Paddington” titles leading up to this one earlier this year. I have heard nothing but good things about both, and boy do they live up to the hype. Ben Whislaw adorably voices the lead role. The rest of the cast has perfect chemistry and all play their parts well. The atmosphere of these films do a great job at adding an enhanced otherworldliness to real life locations. The films somehow get you to buy that an animated bear lives with a large human family.

That said, I did maintain a notable nerve with “Paddington in Peru.” The director of the past couple movies, Paul King, is not in the chair this time around. Dougal Wilson is helming this project instead. As someone who is sometimes resistant to change, it was something lingering in my mind upon this film’s release. Thankfully, my nerves were rid of by the time the film got into gear because this film maintains the tone, atmosphere, and therapeutic nature of the previous “Paddington” installments. I did not know this was Wilson’s first film. But having seen it, I would love to see more from work from him. Heck, if he wanted to do a sequel to this movie, I would not be against it.

Is “Paddington in Peru” as good as the Paul King installments? No. It is a step down. But it is a step down in the same way that I see “Inside Out 2” as a step down from its predecessor. “Inside Out” is so masterfully made that whatever came after it had big shoes to fill. While “Inside Out 2” was good, it was nowhere near the level of the original. In fact, one similarity I will note between these sequels is that these latest films do not pack as much emotional weight as their predecessors. I will forever cherish the ending to “Paddington 2.” It has become a new favorite of mine because not only is it earned, but it almost broke me. There is nothing in this film as emotionally charging as that scene. This does not mean the film itself lacks emotion, it just does not have as much.

In addition to emotion, the film has laughs and adventure. This is a great watch for the entire family, but also maintains a balance between being overly mature and overly childish. Pardon the incoming bear pun, but when it comes to finding a balance for all audiences. The film is “just right.”

“Paddington in Peru” is a solid trilogy capper that understands its characters, its vibes, and successfully progresses the universe into a direction that is bigger than what came before. Bigger does not necessarily mean better in this case, but this film in terms of scope, sometimes feels more epic than the last two. At times, the film has an “Indiana Jones” feel. Not only because of the adventurous structure, but also likely because the film mainly takes place in the jungle. As a bonus, there is a scene involving a giant boulder.

One of the most crucial aspects many movies must balance is a sense of realism combined with suspension of disbelief. The “Paddington” movies do a great job at this, and this one is no exception. One example of this involves Olivia Colman’s character, the Reverend Mother, a happy go lucky, singing, guitar-playing nun who lives in the middle of the Peruvian Jungle. Unsurprisingly, Colman kills it here. She is so dynamic and hyperactive to the point where every scene of hers is a highlight. She makes you believe that someone as over the top like her can exist in a world much like ours.

Going back to what I said about change, turns out the director was not the only change behind the scenes. While Mary Brown (right) from the previous movies does return here, Sally Hawkins has been replaced with another actor, Emily Mortimer. While watching the film, I did not know Hawkins was replaced, but when I look at the two actors side by side I could barely see a difference. Mortimer maintains the welcoming, calm feel Hawkins previously brought to the role and gives a solid performance in her own right. I would love to watch all three of these movies back to back one day and see how these two performances compare as a whole. Although upon my first impression, I have no complaints regarding Emily Mortimer’s portrayal of Mary Brown.

That said, Hugh Bonneville does come back as Henry Brown (right center), and while I think his presence here is probably the weakest of the three movies, I still think Bonneville himself plays the role nicely. I am glad to see him come back. The film tends to dive into Henry’s risk aversion. I thought that was handled well and brought a decent load of conflict into the character’s path.

I see this franchise in the same way that I see some of my favorite sitcoms like “Seinfeld” or “The Big Bang Theory.” Story is arguably the most important aspect of any movie. But even if the story comes off as an afterthought, which for the record, it does not here, I would keep coming back to the “Paddington” movies just to hang out with the characters. Paddington himself is a bundle of joy. The supporting human characters are all likable. The antagonistic roles in this film are some of the best parts of the movie. I would watch a fourth “Paddington” film just to see where these characters go next. If you are under a lot of stress or you want to forget about the troubles of the world, the “Paddington” movies, including this one, are a solid option to pass the time.

The film also looks beautiful. This should not come as a major surprise considering a lot of it takes place in the Peruvian jungle, but the color palette, much like the last two films, has this slight homey gloss to it. Many of the river shots, the tree shots, and anything else related to the jungle environment are pleasing to the eyes. Erik Wilson, who shot the last two “Paddington” movies, comes back to shoot this one, and he follows up those two with another gorgeously framed spectacle.

Also, when the credits roll, do not get out of your chair. There is an extra scene. If you are familiar with these movies, it is a nice little addition that would be worth your time.

In the end, “Paddington in Peru” is the worst of the “Paddington” movies. But like the “Toy Story” franchise, even the weakest film, in my case the fourth one, is worth a watch. The film is a fine-looking, exquisitely presented, well-oiled machine of happiness. Feeling down? Watch this movie. I am not a doctor, but I watch a lot of movies. This is simply my professional advice. The film has the vibe of a glorified Saturday morning cartoon that also feels down to earth. I am looking forward to seeing what Dougal Wilson does next as a director. If “Paddington” continues, I will go to the cinema to support it. The franchise is 3 for 3 so far. I am going to give “Paddington in Peru” a 7/10.

“Paddington in Peru” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Love Hurts,” “The Brutalist,” and “I’m Still Here.” 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 “Paddington in Peru?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Paddington” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Captain America: Brave New World (2025): The First Post-Endgame MCU Film I Did Not Enjoy…

Posted on February 21 by Jack Drees

“Captain America: Brave New World” is directed by Julius Onah (The Cloverfield Paradox, Luce) and stars Anthony Mackie (Synchronic, Twisted Metal), Danny Ramirez (Top Gun: Maverick, The Gifted), Shira Haas (Bodies, Unorthodox), Carl Lumbly (Cagney & Lacey, M.A.N.T.I.S.), Xosha Roquemore (Precious, The Mindy Project), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), Liv Tyler (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Armageddon), Tim Blake Nelson (Watchmen, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed), and Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Blade Runner). This is the 35th movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it is about Sam Wilson, the new Captain America, as he investigates a conspiracy regarding President Thaddeus Ross.

It is that time again. Another Marvel movie is here. Many people will tell you that their interest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been on a decline since “Endgame.” Some are experiencing said decline faster than others… But I am here to tell you that Marvel has yet to let me down since that 2019 blockbuster came out. That is unless you count the TV side, which has had its hits like “WandaVision,” but if I were to be honest with you, “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” could have been better. I did not hate the show. In fact, for television, it seems as if no expense was spared in terms of the production. I just find it to be rather forgettable.

That said, “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” did have its moments. It was also a solid introduction to Anthony Mackie’s Sam as the new Captain America. I thought the way they went about handling that arc was engaging. It set up the character effectively for further stories to commence, including “Captain America: Brave New World.”

Regardless of how I felt watching “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” I was excited for “Captain America: Brave New World.” I thought the trailers did a good job at not giving a ton of information away, while also teasing highlights to look forward to. Plus, even if some people are fatigued by Marvel, there is no denying that it is in a zone right now between “Deadpool & Wolverine” on the film side and “Agatha All Along” on the TV side. Does “Captain America: Brave New World” continue this hot streak?

Ehh…

Marvel Studios/Courtesy of Marvel Studios – © 2024 MARVEL.

I hate to say it, but I think the movie side of the MCU has experienced its weakest installment in years. I am of the unpopular opinion that phase 4 had no bad movies in it. Not every film was a banger in the way that “Spider-Man: No Way Home” was, but I did not hate any of the phase 4 films from Marvel. I also think all the phase 5 movies are good. Yes, even “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” Yes, even “The Marvels.” Both movies were big, explosive bursts of fun. “Captain America: Brave New World” on the other hand was missing the MCU magic.

I have referenced Martin Scorsese before when talking about comic book movies, but I think when it comes to his philosophy on the subgenre, “Captain America: Brave New World” honestly matches parts of it. While the film definitely has human characters expressing human emotions, the screenplay sometimes feels like it was written by artificial intelligence. I say this not only because the dialogue sounds stale and robotic, but also due to how this film essentially takes what has worked in previous films and shoved it into this one.

The film is definitely a “cinematic experience,” but it is cinematic in the sense that it has the scope of a theme park ride that offers very few genuine thrills. If this were Universal Orlando, this would be the equivalent to “Race Through New York Starring Jimmy Fallon.” It is a timewaster full of connections that some people will probably understand right away but will just as likely fly over lots of people’s heads.

“Captain America: Brave New World” is marketed as a… well, “Captain America” movie. But kind of like how “Civil War” was also a mini “Avengers” film, this is also secretly a film that if you break it down, is a blink you’ll miss it sequel to another part of the MCU. One of the problems with the MCU I have addressed is that as the universe gets bigger, it makes it that much harder to keep up with all the material. And for those who did keep up, chances are some of those people will not retain every detail. There is a chance I would have enjoyed this movie more had I vividly remembered certain details from earlier in the MCU.

What makes this film the weakest the MCU given in years is perhaps the idea that it builds off of so much that has already been established to the point where it comes off more as a continuation than an original idea. You do not necessarily have to see “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” to understand this movie, but I think one can argue that viewers may appreciate this movie more if they watch that show. However, this movie is essentially a continuation of an MCU property that I am surprised is being brought back to the spotlight all these years later. Is this a good continuation? Not really. If anything, it adds to the overall convolution of this movie to the point where it almost lacks an identity. The MCU often receives complaints for how villains are handled in their projects, but at least in a lot of their projects, I can pinpoint who the big baddie usually is. That is not the case this time around.

Sometimes, “Brave New World” is a watered-down version of “The Winter Soldier.” The main characters may be different people this time around to some degree, but the main trio is structured similarly to that 2014 banger. The film emphasizes the presence of a new Falcon sidekick. We already met this sidekick on “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” but he has a much bigger presence this time around. That said, I am honestly not loving Danny Ramirez’s portrayal of Joaquin Torres. I have nothing against Ramirez, the actor. If anything, I am not a fan of the material he is given through the direction and the script. Going back to my distaste for the dialogue, this is especially noticeable with Joaquin. The character kind of reminds me of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man if you decided to remove his knack for humor. He is awkward, and sounds like he is giving off multiple variations of the same line over and over again, even if the next line is completely different from the last. The movie is likely going for a Batman & Robin vibe with its relationship. But if anything, Falcon sounds like a Robin parody.

Holy Red Hulk, Captain!

“Captain America: Brave New World,” despite all the otherworldly shenanigans and science fiction elements, appears to be more grounded than some of the other recent MCU films. If there is one character that cartoonifies this film, it would probably be Joaquin. There are more installments in the cinematic universe to come, so hopefully, Joaquin gets some better material than this.

This film is led by Anthony Mackie, who has done an excellent job playing Sam Wilson through the MCU’s previous installments. I am glad to see him get his own movie after all this time. While I wish the film itself were better, the long wait pays off in spades in another regard, because Mackie dominates the screen. People talk about actors like Ryan Reynolds and Tom Cruise oozing movie star level charisma. While Anthony Mackie may not be a movie star to the degree those two actors are, I think he could have been in another life because he kills it as the lead.

One common complaint I hear about the MCU, not to mention comic book movies in general, is that they all tend to end the same way where you have this big battle where the effects are dialed up to an 11. Sometimes to the point where said effects lack any realism at all. I do not always mind these sorts of climaxes because you have to end the movie on a big note. That said, the big note in this case had something missing. This film’s climax in no way feels grand or exciting. In fact, when the climax draws to a close, I thought we were on the verge of something else happening. I thought there would be another big bad to worry about or a last minute twist. That is not what happens. The climax of this film, while it has one or two decent elements, was underwhelming. Part of it might as well be blamed on the marketing. There was a character in the marketing that had me convinced they would be a middling threat of some kind, but they turned out to be a bit bigger. That said, when the movie goes down, said character felt as middling of a threat as they were in the trailer.

I also hate to say this, but the special effects did not save this movie. This is something I have noticed quite a bit in some recent Marvel projects. While I cannot name a single MCU movie or show where every effect is bad, there are quite a few projects where some effects that are noticeably sub-par. “Thor: Love and Thunder” is a good example. Per usual, Thor’s lightning effects look great. There are some good fire effects. But if you take certain shots from the movie, like one of Heimdall’s son’s floating head, that is not up to the quality I would expect from a cinematic universe that has garnered praise for delivering one spectacle after another. This leads me to say that “Captain America: Brave New World” may have the weakest special effects I have seen in an MCU film. Not only is the CGI obvious at times, but distractingly so. It took me out of the movie. This complaint mostly pertains to the way the movie handles Sam Wilson’s Captain America suit, which is established at the start of the film to be made of highly advanced vibranium in perhaps the most expository way possible. Every time the movie highlights some piece of vibranium technology, it looks holographic. It looks so unrealistic. I hate to say that because vibranium is not a new concept to the MCU. Just go watch the “Black Panther” movies. I do not have humungous problems with the vibranium effects in those films. Though when it is applied to Sam’s suit, it is rather goofy-looking.

I understand that “Captain America” as a brand is heavily associated with the big screen. As a concept, it is one of the most prominent in the MCU. There is a reason why something like this movie, titled “Captain America” ended up in theaters, whereas “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” which is about previous supporting characters and sidekicks, went to Disney+. Although just because the name “Captain America” is cinema-friendly, does not mean the same is true for the product behind the name. When you break this movie down on selling points, it feels like something that should be put in theaters. The Captain America name, the star power of Harrison Ford, Red Hulk, select scenes being shot with digital IMAX cameras… But tonally, this movie comes off as a lame Disney+ series that got condensed into a two hour movie. Certain scenes and storylines feel rushed, underdeveloped, and poorly written. When I was talking to my friend as we were leaving this film, one of the first things I said to her in regards to my initial thoughts was that the movie “flies by.” One can see that as a compliment. But I think the movie took notes from “Spaceballs” and dialed itself into “ludacrous speed.” I love a good fast-paced movie. I can also say I was never completely bored by this film. But the film seems to end at a point that leaves me unsatisfied.

To no one’s surprise, there is extra material during the end credits of this film. Unfortunately though, or perhaps fortunately if you are in a rush to get home after the mediocrity of this film, there is not really anything exciting in the post-credits scene. I have seen some MCU products do a good job at teasing something new. This does not really do that. Instead of a tease, it is more of a reminder of something that I already thought would be coming. I guess if you are not familiar with the MCU this could be an okay credits scene. But this is one of the weaker ones I have seen in this cinematic universe.

In the end, “Captain America: Brave New World” is not up to the quality I expect from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I do not expect every MCU film to be perfect, but I think it is safe to say that the timeline has spoiled me with one decent project after another. I was looking forward “Brave New World.” The trailers looked great. It had the ingredients for an intriguing watch. But the culmination of such a recipe left a bad taste in my mouth. I will not deny there are good things about the movie. The action, for the most part, is fun to watch. I particularly enjoyed seeing the shield move chaotically through the screen in multiple scenes. Anthony Mackie is an excellent lead. I would watch a fifth “Captain America” movie if he were the star. But between the bad special effects, unmemorable characters and story, bland at best dialogue, and underwhelming climax. The negatives stood out for me more than the positives. That is a sentiment I hate to use regarding any movie, but as a fan of the MCU, it particularly hurts saying that in this case. I am going to give “Captain America: Brave New World” a 5/10.

“Captain America: Brave New World” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Paddington in Peru” and “Love Hurts.” 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 “Captain America: Brave New World?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of negativity, what is your LEAST favorite Marvel movie since “Avengers: Endgame?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dog Man (2025): Part Dog, Part Man, All Mid

Posted on February 4 by Jack Drees

“Dog Man” is directed by Peter Hastings, who also provides a few voices in the film, including the titular character. Joining him is a casting including Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Lil Rel Howrey (The Carmichael Show, Get Out), Isla Fisher (Tag, Now You See Me), Poppy Liu (No Good Deed, Sunnyside), Stephen Root (Office Space, Finding Nemo), Billy Boyd (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Outlander), and Ricky Gervais (Night at the Museum, The Office). This film is set after an event so nonsensical it might just work… Sewing a dog’s head onto a man’s body so both sides can live on as a singular being. The film follows Dog Man’s mission to bring a halt to Petey the Cat’s desire to stop all do-gooders.

My interest in “Dog Man” was almost next to none. There was no way I saw myself paying my hard earned money to see something like this. The trailers barely did anything to motivate me to go see it. I enjoy a good animated flick, but there was nothing about “Dog Man” that made me think it would be worth my time. The humor did not seem to land with me. The general tone felt overly silly for my taste. That said, I ended up watching the film at a free screening a week before it came out. They say the best things in life are free right? Well, that is not always true. Because “Dog Man” is just okay.

“Dog Man” is the latest DreamWorks animated movie. I am rather fond of DreamWorks. I grew up watching several of their animated titles. In fact, I recently rewatched one of my childhood films, “Kung Fu Panda,” and found more layers to unpack from it that I probably did not realize were there when I was watching it for the first time at eight years old. Not every DreamWorks movie hits, but “Kung Fu Panda” packs a mighty punch. Similar to that movie, I can see kids watching “Dog Man” when they are young, revisiting it at a later age, and unpacking more of the film’s lessons. The problem is, I am wondering if they will enjoy the movie as much as they did when they were growing up. This film definitely has material that adults can appreciate, but I think the kids will end up latching onto this film more.

The film cleverly handles Dog Man’s communication. A lot of animated movies will personify animal characters, including dogs. Dog Man is an exception to the rule. Despite having man in his name, the communication style is strictly canine. He does not speak English. He only communicates through barks and howls. Sometimes it is a little over the top, but there are also times where it works. As for the character himself, he is a decently fleshed out center of the film. The story does a good job at meshing the personalities of the two characters we see during the first few minutes as they merge and become one.

You can kind of say this about other major studios too, but I feel like we are experiencing an era in DreamWorks history where each film delivers a different animation style than the previous one. Sure, “Kung Fu Panda 4” felt rather familiar to its predecessors. But if you look back at “The Bad Guys” or “The Wild Robot,” you would probably get a sense that you are looking at something that could only exist in its respective universe. Granted, those two properties are also based on books that have a distinctive style of their own. “Dog Man” is no exception. I saw one review that compared the animation style to “Captain Underpants,” another book series that also became a DreamWorks movie. Turns out, both book properties are by the same author, and “Dog Man” was originally teased in a “Captain Underpants” book. It only makes sense that the two productions look alike.

For the record, I did not watch the “Captain Underpants” movie. If I had to pinpoint something “Dog Man” reminds me of, and I do not know how many people would actually agree with me, the first thing that comes to mind is the “Backyard Sports” series of video games. Remember those? You had the animated characters with the crazy thin eyes? Every time I look at a character’s eyes in this film, I am convinced they were borrowed from a “Backyard Sports” game.

If you go into this movie expecting realism, you are going to be severely disappointed. I mean, come on. The movie is literally about what happens following the stitching of a dog and a man. The movie has a fast-paced, TikTok sort of style to it, to the point where just about every line of dialogue is incredibly piped up and quickly edited. It throws a lot of information in such a short runtime. The film does poke fun at certain tendencies we see in everyday life, especially from pets. We see Dog Man on the chase, completing his task, but he gets distracted by a squirrel. The main rivalry of the film is between a dog and a cat. The cat has a variety of evil plans to capture his rival, including the use of a vacuum cleaner. What is this, “Spaceballs?” The movie reminds me a bit of “The Mitchells vs. the Machines.” Because upon my first watch of both projects, I got the sense that there were so many blink you’ll miss it details to the point where you would have to watch the movie a second time to see what flew over your head. Thankfully, I understood the film’s basic plot, structure, and character motivations. It is not like the film is broken. The film is paced like “Run Lola Run” and contains perhaps a thousand times more instances of dialogue.

That said, even if I did have any interest in picking up on details I missed the first time, I simply do not see myself watching “Dog Man” again. The film is not for me. I do not have a lot of younger children in my social circles, but I have heard from people either in conversation or online that they know kids who love the books on which this film is based. Maybe they will enjoy the movie, but I am not sure how the film will age. The film has good lessons about being a role model and how some people emulate their parents, but it is surrounded by a visually obnoxious series of scenes that almost overwhelm the senses.

Speaking of details, that is also where the devil seems to lie. By that I mean, the devil probably came in and fiddled with them. Because there are parts of this film that are genuinely funny. In fact, there is one gag involving characters exchanging money that had me in stitches. It makes no sense but that is why it works. But going back to this film’s TikTok pace, that can most definitely apply to the humor as well. Forget a mile a minute, the humor in “Dog Man” flies at a kilometer per minute! Having so many jokes could be a good thing. Again, going back to “The Mitchells vs. the Machines,” that film had me laughing nonstop and uncontrollably. That is a film where if I watched it with the windows open, I would probably get a noise complaint from a neighbor. They would probably think I’m a madman. But in the case of “Dog Man,” the movie shoves so much comedy into its script that a lot of it inevitably fails to stick the landing.

The film also has a noticeable amount of news exposition. This is common in a lot of movies and television, but I will give credit to the news sequences in this film having a unique flair to them. Granted, they did add to the film’s overall obnoxiousness, but I will not deny that Isla Fisher does a good job in her role as Sarah Hatoff, a news reporter with tons of screentime.

In the end, “Dog Man” is just fine. I am not a dog person, and I am barely a people person. But I can say, as a movie person, this is as middle of the road as animation gets. There is nothing remotely offensive about “Dog Man.” At times it is undoubtedly creative, but the film ultimately prioritizes quantity over quality. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to comedy. Having a lot of jokes is great, but it is better when all of them land. A noticeable number of them did not do that for me. This is not my least favorite DreamWorks film, but I am still going to give “Dog Man” a 5/10.

“Dog Man” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Love Me,” the brand new sci-fi film starring Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. Stay tuned! If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dog Man?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have any experience with the “Dog Man” books? Are they any good? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Flow (2024): 2024’s Quietest and Most Unique Animated Film

Posted on December 30 by Jack Drees

“Flow” is directed by Gints Zilbalodis (Away, Oasis) and is an animated film featuring no voice actors and no dialogue. This film is about a stray cat whose home is devastated by a great flood. After finding refuge on a boat, the feline must team up with different kinds of animals and cooperate with them despite everyone’s differences.

I saw the trailer for “Flow” once when I was in the cinema. Specifically, when I was watching one of my favorite movies of the year, “Look Back.” The film looked different but wonderfully simple. I am not much a cat person, nor an animal person really. Nevertheless, I was intrigued. But I almost forgot about it until it came out. I saw this film on December 21st, the same weekend that another big cat movie was coming out, “Mufasa: The Lion King.” I had no interest in supporting yet another one of Disney’s live-action remakes. 2016’s “Jungle Book”-aside, which has truly stunning visual effects, none of them really interested me. So I decided to go see “Flow” instead since I had the time. I have not heard a single bad thing about this movie before I went in, so naturally I should like this movie right?…

Of course! Ladies and gentlemen, whatever hype comes your way regarding “Flow,” believe it. This movie is amazing!

“Flow” is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is up there. It is certainly one of the best animated movies of the year. If it ends up taking some of the Best Animated Feature categories during the awards shows this season, I will applaud its victory. My top 10 BEST movies of the year is coming within the next couple weeks or so, and right now in terms of animations, “Flow” belongs in the big three and has a chance of getting on the list, or at least an honorable mention. You have “Flow,” the recently mentioned “Look Back,” and the Hollywood-produced flick “The Wild Robot.” When it comes to that last film, “Flow” has some striking similarities to it. For one thing, both heavily involve animals. Granted, the animals are utilized in significantly different ways. “The Wild Robot” uses animals as secondary characters, and they are voiced by people. As for “Flow,” not only do the animals lack human voices, they are literally the only characters in this movie. No humans, no robots, no aliens. I mean, humans are animals. Still, I am sure many of you have the common sense to understand my point. Both films even present a possible reality that society could face if we are not careful enough. Both films seem to imply that mankind has ruined the earth with our own activities and did not do enough to deal with climate change. There are scenes in each picture where you can see risen water levels, particularly around manmade structures and buildings. In fact, as established previously, the film is about a cat trying to survive after a great flood.

Another similarity I can state is that I have iffy thoughts on the animation. Although I will be fair to “Flow” because it is not produced at as high of a budget as say a DreamWorks or Illumination movie, therefore I can forgive the film’s cheap look every once in a while. That said, there are times where it does look cheap. I will compliment the animation for its vibrant color palette and smooth feel. That said, if were to take certain frames out of context, I would say those frames could end up feeling cheap. At the same time, however, considering the budget of this movie, €3.5 million, which translates to $3.6 million, the animation does present a decent amount of detail. The animation style of this film, even though it feels minimalistic, is by no means bad. It is actually somewhat lifelike. If these animals were in our world, I would buy them if they had a few more specks of detail added to their bodies. There were also several shots in the movie that put me into the frame, not just because of the detail on display, but because of how long such shots went on. Some moments of this film kind of reminded me of action scenes from “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Atomic Blonde,” or “Zombieland: Double Tap,” where the sequence is all done in a way to make things look as if it were a single shot. “Flow” has one or two great shots that go on for an extended time. Safe to say, I was captivated.

Speaking of things that are lifelike, I admire this movie’s unique approach to have no spoken dialogue. Literally the only utterances in this film are animal sounds. This is an animated movie, and I know that these kinds of films often do well with children. There were children at my screening for the record. Although I wonder how this particular film is going to sit with the children who end up watching it. In films like these, where animals dominate the cast, children are often used to seeing them speak our own languages. I think a film like this could be a good watch for children if you want to give them a challenge. The film never “tells” the audience what it is about. It trusts the audience to understand what is happening. Even if you were to present this film to a child and they do not quite understand what is happening, I am sure that they will like watching the animals. I am sure they will enjoy the spectacle. I think there are things that they can appreciate. Although if this film were to get repeat viewings, they might pick up more as they rewatch it. I often talk about how accessible Pixar movies are not just for children, but also adults. “Flow” is in the same boat. I think this is a great movie for all ages that does not resort to immature gags or tired humor. Kind of like Pixar’s “Wall-E,” very little is said in the movie, but the film itself has a lot to say regarding our future, and offers an exciting adventure at the same time.

As I said before, I am not an animal person. Therefore, it should also not surprise you that I am not a pet person. However, I have been around dogs extensively so I know some of the realistic tendencies that were on display from those specific characters during the movie. I think dog owners will appreciate those being in the film. I think if you are a pet owner and you watch this movie, or at the very least, if you have been around these animals for extended periods of time, you will be able to appreciate this film for the little actions it sprinkles in the script here and there.

In the end, “Flow” is a must see movie that ranks as one of the best animations of the year. The style is sometimes iffy, but also kind of charming. The film has a lively adventure, great score, and ultimately, something for everyone. If you do not mind movies without dialogue, this should definitely be a priority on your movie to-do list. I have no clue on what the replay value for this movie will be, but I think that “Flow” is a movie that everyone should watch at least once. I am going to give “Flow” a 9/10.

“Flow” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Ladies and gentlemen, we are down to the final three movies I saw in theaters in 2024! My next reviews are going to be for “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” Once these reviews are done, it is time once again for the end of the year countdowns! Look forward to my top 10 WORST movies of 2024 and my top 10 BEST movies of 2024, coming to Scene Before next year. If you want to see these posts and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Flow?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated movie you saw this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (2024): Colorful Spectacle and Obnoxious Dialogue Overshadows Stakes in This Threequel

Posted on December 29 by Jack Drees

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is directed by Jeff Fowler, who also directed the previous “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies. This film stars Jim Carrey (Batman Forever, The Mask), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, The Afterparty), Krysten Ritter (Veronica Mars, Gilmore Girls), Shemar Moore (S.W.A.T., Criminal Minds), Colleen O’Shaughnessey (Digimon, Naruto), James Marsden (X-Men, Superman Returns), Tika Sumpter (Mixed-ish, Ride Along), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), and Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick). This film follows Sonic and his team as they face a new enemy, Shadow the Hedgehog. When the team realizes the potential dangers of Shadow’s power, they choose to band together with an unlikely ally to stop him.

Video game adaptations have had an iffy history at best. Yes, on the television side you have hits like “The Last of Us” and “Arcane,” but as far as movies go, there is not a single title I imagine most people would consider to be a masterpiece. Sure, the 1995 “Mortal Kombat” had some charm to it. It is definitely not a horrible movie. Same goes with 2023’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” which I have no plans to watch ever again, but I would be lying to you if I said it was inferior to 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.” adaptation.

The “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies have made for an interesting franchise. And I do believe “interesting” is the best word to use in this case. Because neither of the two movies I have seen up to this point have been bad. I thought the first one in particular is quite fun and offers replay value. It has a simple but effective story. Ben Schwartz is a great pick to voice Sonic. Jim Carrey as Robotnik may go down as some of the best casting of the decade. The climax is really fun. Overall, it is a good time for all ages. Then we get to “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” which maintains some of the positives of the original. You have good visual effects, nice sound design, and a pretty cool third act. But the film also drags because there is an abysmally irritating wedding subplot that makes no sense. There were other things to make up for it. I even gave the film a 6/10 in my review. But that score was pretty generous if you asked me. For the record, I bought the original “Sonic the Hedgehog” and watched it at home after checking it out in the cinema. The same cannot be said for the sequel.

They say you are only as good as your last project. And while I had a positive experience with “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” I still found it disappointing. So my expectations for “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” while they were not sitting right at rock bottom, were also not that high. But those expectations shot up with a pretty solid marketing campaign. I thought by the end it gave away a little too much, but the trailers were funny and promised something a little darker than the other two installments. I was ultimately onboard.

So what did I think? Eh, the movie’s fine.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is in fact a step up from “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” But the movie is also nowhere near as good as the original “Sonic the Hedgehog.” Though if I had to name a positive for not only this movie, but all three movies so far, it is that they maintain a sense of consistency. They all feel like they belong in the same universe and work well off each other. As a trilogy, the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies are not quite as good as say “Lord of the Rings.” But just like “Lord of the Rings,” the movies feel perfectly interconnected. Coincidentally, both of these trilogies are done through a singular vision. All the “Lord of the Rings” movies were directed by Peter Jackson, and all the “Sonic the Hedgehog” installments were helmed by Jeff Fowler. If there is anyone who is perhaps responsible for “Sonic’s” consistency, Fowler is perhaps the most likely candidiate. They even got the same writers for all three movies. Pat Casey and Josh Miller wrote the first movie together. The two ended up coming back for the sequels along with John Whittington.

This leads me to perhaps the most robust assertion I could perhaps make about “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you really liked “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel, you are going to like “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you find those first two movies to be bad, then chances are you will feel the same way about this latest installment. As for me, I made it clear I liked the first two movies. I did not love either of them, in fact, I would even say “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is barely passable, so to have the third one find itself on the lower end of my positive scale comes as almost no surprise whatsoever.

One of my complaints about the second movie was the dialogue. For the record, the dialogue in the second film feels similar to the first. But every other minute Sonic is spewing out some random pop culture joke or some semblance of words that come close to such a thing and not many of them land. This film seems to maintain my dialogue distaste. There is a lot of obnoxious chit chat and a lot of the lines feel overly cartoony. Yes, I know this film has animated characters. But even for something like this, it comes off as overblown. That said, the film does still get the occasional laugh from our hero characters.

However, the biggest laughs in the film, perhaps unsurprisingly, come from Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is back in this film doing double duty. Not only is he back for his third portrayal of Doctor Ivo Robotnik, but he is also playing his grandfather, Professor Gerald Robotnik. Seeing Jim Carrey play both of these characters at the same time makes for a weird, wacky, and fun experience like no other. I think Carrey is the best part of these movies. I say that even though I do think his material in the second film hindered his performance a bit. As for this third film, it is nice to see Carrey getting some funny, ludicrous material to work with. Every time he was on screen, I had a grin on my face.

This film also introduces a new hedgehog character, Shadow. Keanu Reeves plays the role, which I think is a great choice. Having heard the character’s voice in certain video games, this is fairly decent match. Also when it comes to Shadow’s design, Reeves’ voice seems to mesh well with the character. But as much as I liked the trailers for this film, my one worry was that Shadow would sound too much like Keanu Reeves was playing himself. I felt a lot of John Wick-isms in his execution. I like “John Wick,” but one problem I have with celebrity voice casting is that the celebrities sound so much like themselves that they fail to blend in with their character. Having seen Shadow, I can say there are scenes where Keanu clearly sounds like he is playing himself, but by no means is he phoning it in. I saw a little bit of Keanu in the performance, yet simultaneously, I saw all Shadow if that makes any sense.

Also to a certain degree, I liked seeing Shadow’s backstory. While I am one to complain about this movie being a bit obnoxious at times, I think Shadow’s backstory occasionally makes for some solid visual storytelling. There is even some decent dialogue. The film also develops a nice little commonality between Sonic and Shadow, particularly how the two were able to find humans with whom they became best friends sometime after their arrival to earth. We saw this previously with Sonic and Tom Wachowski, AKA “Donut Lord.” Shadow seems to develop a similar connection with a young girl named Maria.

If I were a young kid watching this movie, I would probably have a great time with it. There is a lot of action, adventure, and humor. This would probably be a frequent watch in my house if I were 9 or 10 years old. As a 25 year old, I am trying to think about what this movie teaches our children. Sure, it is over the top and zany to no end. But I think it delivers positive lessons. Shadow’s presence in the movie makes me think lots of children will be introduced to the potential negatives of animal testing. On the hero’s side of the spectrum, the film also showcases the importance of teamwork and the complications of making the right choice.

Photo by [Paramount Pictures and Sega of A, Inc.]/Paramount Pictures and – © 2024 Par. Pics & SEGA

I talked about how I think “Sonic 3” is a step up from “Sonic 2,” and there is another improvement regarding this film I have not mentioned yet, the humans. For one thing, the humans’ involvement in “Sonic 3” raise far fewer questions as to the logistics of the plot. There are some moments of the movie in general that I thought were a bit far-fetched, but still. We also tend to focus more on Sonic and his crew this time around as opposed to the humans. Granted, Tom and Maddie do play a significant role in the film. Though their use throughout the runtime is much more pleasing compared to the last film. This film is also noticeably tighter than “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” Though it should come as no surprise considering “Sonic 3” is 13 minutes shorter. But they seemed to have trimmed out the fluff so to speak. In terms of plot, characters, and overall details, the film is definitely more complicated than this franchise’s kickstarter. But by no means does the film feel terribly overstuffed or boring. There is never a dull moment in “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” There are slower moments, there are cheesy moments. However not once did I want to fall asleep watching this movie.

I said before that one of my complaints about this movie is that it is a little overly cartoony. And if you watch cartoons, you would know that the characters from one episode to the next behave very similarly to how they do in the last. That makes sense for consistency’s sake. You can even say the same thing in other television shows done in live-action, but it is especially noticeable in cartoons. I watched this movie and I noticed not only are Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles very similar to how they behave in the second movie, Knuckles in particular almost feels too similar. Sure, we learn that apparently he has picked up some pop culture knowledge. We see him make a “Pokemon” joke early on in the film. Even with that in mind, Knuckles still sounds like a fish out of water when it comes to concepts with which many earthlings would happen to understand. I do not know exactly how long this movie takes place after “Sonic 2,” but if Knuckles is still behaving the way he is, the timejump cannot be that far. At least for logic’s sake I hope that is the case.

Throughout the review we have talked about just how consistent this property has been. This has resulted in positives like Jim Carrey continuing to kill it as Robotnik and some action-packed third acts. But it has also resulted in negatives like a lack of character development or nonsensical scenes. There is one more consistency that if this franchise were to continue for some time, I hope gets addressed. By the end of this film, I left feeling the stakes in this franchise are minimal. I am not going to dive into detail, but the “Sonic the Hedgehog” franchise somewhat feels like the “Fast & Furious” franchise for a younger audience. Yes, both are action-packed films involving speed and globetrotting missions. But the further we get into the franchise, the more I am convinced that several characters are perhaps either invincible or lucky.

I understand that the “Sonic” franchise is a hit with younger viewers and the people behind it would therefore not want to make it too dark. But this franchise keeps adding new faces that it just makes you wonder when the heck it is going to suddenly get rid of one of them. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a decent moneymaker for Paramount. As good as it may be now to have all the movies feel the same, it also risks running the franchise into the ground and having it feel bland. We have seen this problem with the Michael Bay-directed “Transformers” franchise, another popular product of Paramount. While the movies tend to have slight differences, they for the most part come off as carbon copies of one another. Despite my complaint, if Jeff Fowler and the same writing team were to come back for “Sonic the Hedgehog 4,” I would be onboard. They have a proven track record, even if it is not the greatest. Although I think it would be fun to see someone put their own creative spin into the franchise.

Also, one more consistency to bring up, this film has some extra material during the credits. There is a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene. Stick around for both of them.

In the end, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is not a bad movie. In fact, by the standards of video game movies, it is one of the better ones. Despite that, the movie is still not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is a step up from the last “Sonic” outing, but still not good enough to rival the original. Also, as far as video game movies go, I think it is slightly more watchable than “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” This feels more like a movie compared to that film, which literally just comes off as an hour and a half of nonstop easter eggs and references just for the sake of forced nostalgia within a generic storyline. The voicework in this film, per usual, is top notch. The human characters are a noticeable improvement compared to the previous installment. Shadow is a nice addition to the franchise. But the jokes are off and on, the dialogue is a little too obnoxious, and I know this is a movie about a talking hedgehog, but even with that in mind, there are things in this film that feel a tad far-fetched. If you like the last two movies, this is definitely for you. If not, maybe go see something else. I am going to give “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” a 6/10.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for my thoughts on films including “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Sonic the Hedgehog 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Red One (2024): A Holiday Movie for Everyone, and Therefore, No One

Posted on December 6, 2024 by Jack Drees

“Red One” is directed by Jake Kasdan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Sex Tape) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Central Intelligence, Moana), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, Knives Out), Lucy Liu (Charlie’s Angels, Strange World), and J.K. Simmons. This film showcases what happens when Santa’s bodyguard (Johnson) and a hacker (Evans) team up to find and rescue Saint Nick himself after he has been kidnapped.

There are two words that define “Red One” for me. And no, they are not “red” or “one.” The two words that have consistently stayed in my head regarding “Red One” just so happen to be “it’s fine.” It is that middle of the road utterance you give to someone when you are trying not to hurt their feelings, but you also do not want to overblow your emotions and put on a performance. What did I think of the first “Red One” trailer? Eh, it’s fine. What did I think of the second trailer? I mean, it’s fine I guess. Looks fun enough. I was entertained by both of them. They both made me curious about the film. But I am not going to pretend it boosted my excitement in the same way that Marvel’s “Thunderbolts*” did, which took me from a concept I felt rather indifferent about, to immediately demanding at least five or so minutes of more footage.

I will be real, if you were to measure my excitement for “Red One,” it would be somewhere in the middle. I cannot pretend I have massive expectations for this film, but there are promising elements to behold. I liked the whole spy action vibe the film was promising, where the objective for our two recognizable leads is to rescue Santa Claus. “Violent Night” recently showed you can make a cool modern action flick with a Christmas backdrop, so maybe “Red One” would result in something similar.

Not to beat a dead horse… But “Red One” is, well, what other description can I possibly give?! It’s fine! If they come out with a DVD for this film, please note how I said if, not when, because this movie is an Amazon production. But if they come out with a DVD for “Red One,” you might as well take the two words I just said, “It’s fine,” and put that quote on the bottom of the cover. I bet that will make a great addition to the Walmart $5 bin. Do those bins even exist anymore? Asking for a friend.

I have heard this comparison before, but I think there is almost no better way to pitch this film to someone. “Red One” is practically a movie within a movie. It is a movie that you would make that purely exists within the universe of another film, or even say a TV show. This is the kind of movie that would exist in an episode of “The Big Bang Theory,” Penny would have to pitch the concept to her friends after she reads the script only to pause for audience laughter. The concept sounds goofy enough, but putting actors as notable as Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans in the lead roles? It is a perfect recipe for a two minute gag in a coming of age comedy. But this movie is not two minutes. It is more than two hours. And it packs quite a bit into the runtime. Some of it lands, some of it does not. But it is hard for me to say that there was a lot in the movie that gave me a particularly strong reaction. Not much made me overly irate. Not much made me giddy with glee. That said, there are things that stood out to me about the film.

One positive I have about the film is how much lore they put into the mythology of Christmas, the North Pole, Santa Claus, or even other mysterious beings. The film undoubtedly puts a creative twist on handling what we tend to know as mythology.

That said, this film’s interpretation of the North Pole is both creative and underwhelming at the same time. For my “Star Wars” fans out there, it is basically the midichlorians of North Pole interpretations. When I think of the North Pole based on how I imagined it as a kid and what I have seen through media, I have always interpreted it as this whimsy, magical place. But a couple of the first things I notice when we get to the North Pole are a semi-depressing color scheme and drones flying. Sure, maybe drones can be magical… But when I look at the drones they have no poppy color to them, no pizzazz, and they honestly look like something you’d find in a store. The North Pole does not look as fun or magical as other interpretations. If anything it looks kind of bland. I get that the movie is a spy action thriller, and I like parts of what they are going for. But the North Pole is not one of them.

I also want to note something to families looking to see this film. I will not spoil anything considering the movie is new, but the movie opens with some material I think certain children should not be seeing. Also, this scene does set up the rest of the film, but I also think that scene would have been a better set up to a different story. For the record, the scene features a younger version of Chris Evans’ character, Jack O’Malley, and shows him doing something he probably should not be doing. We see this develop into something else in the long term, but I would love to see how this would have paid off in a shorter term. Perhaps hours, days, or even a year after Jack commits to his actions. Again, I will not go into detail. I think it would have spiraled into a movie that would have been much more fun than the one we got.

The holiday season is full of new films with great performances, many of which get nominated for Oscars, Critics Choice Awards, SAGs, and so on. “Red One” is not one of those movies. In fact it is not even close. Yes, there are competent performances on the supporting end. There is nothing totally anger-inducing, yet there is also not really much to write home about. With that in mind, if you were to ask me what I want for Christmas this year? It would for this movie to have two significantly better lead performances.

I am not going to pretend that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is the greatest actor of all time. Though I would not doubt his charisma gets him by from one movie to the next. That said, after several outings, he almost seems to do the same song and dance every other time. Yeah, maybe the “Jumanji” movies showcase his skills sometimes because he has to play other people simulating him. But when I look at movies like “Skyscraper,” “Rampage,” “Red Notice,” or this latest one, he seems to be playing some variation of himself. In some of these movies, even if he does not give an Oscar-worthy performance, he at least has a positive presence. The same can be said for “Red One” in certain scenes. I liked all the scenes between Johnson’s character, Callum Drift, and Santa Claus, played nicely by J.K. Simmons. But for various portions of the film, Johnson came off as if he was just playing the hits, but giving a tired version of them. The performance is not that inviting. It feels been there, done that. Does Johnson look like he wants to be on set? The way the movie is presented certainly makes him look that way. But I am willing to bet whenever he smiled on screen, that smile came with the knowledge that he would soon be getting a good chunk of the movie’s $250 million dollar budget.

Yeah… There is no way this movie cost $250 million. There are definitely a lot of special effects and things going on in each frame, but there is no way this is movie cost as much to make as “The Dark Knight Rises…”

Speaking of people who probably got paid a crapton of money for their presence in the film, let’s talk about Chris Evans! I love Chris Evans. Of course I have enjoyed watching him as Captain America, but even in movies I did not enjoy, I still think Evans ends up being a highlight. Personally, he was the best part of that forgettable Netflix movie, “The Gray Man.” But as far as Evans goes, his performance belongs on the naughty list. Though I would not entirely blame Chris Evans. While he may appear to be sleepwalking in the film from time to time, the script does him almost no favors. His character is about as one-dimensional as a ragdoll in “G-Mod.” Every other moment with Evans is just him acting bewildered or mind-blown. He is clearly playing the fish out of water role, but such a trait brings nothing interesting to the table as far as this project is concerned. Other than trying to get what he wants when he wants it, being a lame fish out of water might as well be Jack’s entire personality. Well, those aspects in addition to perving out on Wonder Woman.

As for the action in this film, I am surprised to say that there are some standout scenes. There are a couple minutes inside of Jack O’Malley’s apartment where he fends off tons of people at once. I thought the choreography in that scene was really good. There is a creative moment in the film involving Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots. While I thought the scene itself was average, I did like one confrontation between Jack O’Malley and a giant snowman that turns its head like a Terminator when placed on a burning grill. But I cannot pretend I was that riveted by any of the action scenes. If anything I was amused by them, but to say I was wowed would be a hyperbole.

This is not necessarily an action scene as much as it is a face off, but there is a fantastic scene where our heroes come face to face with Krampus. There is a perfectly paced few minutes where Krampus and one of the characters are going one on one in the creature’s own game. It is quite entertaining. Sadly, I cannot say most of the movie is just as thrilling. By the way, for a movie full of visuals that would make you think it is a forgotten project from the late 2000s, early 2010s, I have to say the look for Krampus is a great display of practical effects. He looks great!

Theoretically, “Red One” is a movie that seems to be made to entertain or satisfy just about every person who would see it. But that is also where the film has a drawback. It tries to be dozens of things at once to the point where it does not really seem to know who exactly it is for. Is it for action junkies? Is it for people who like Christmas movies? Is it for people who like “The Rock?” Is it for people looking for a bit of a family dynamic? Will teens like it? Does it have enough for the kiddos? The movie throws a bunch of things at the wall. Some may stick, but not like superglue. Sure, “Red One” has action, but it is not the most innovative or exciting of the year. Yes, this movie has a Christmas backdrop, but lacks a sense of spirit or magic. Of course, “The Rock” is in the movie, but I would say he has had better performances and scripts to work with. There is a family dynamic but it almost lingers in the background. Certain teens would probably get behind some of the spectacle-based scenes but to call this movie the most spectacular-looking of the year when “Dune: Part Two” and “Twisters” exist would be generous. Kids could also be entertained by the adventure, but there are some things in this film that I imagine their parents would not want them to see.

When you break it down, “Red One” tries to be for everybody, but embraces its elements so minimally or poorly to the point where the movie is arguably for nobody. If you want to watch a movie from this year that so brilliantly speaks to several demographics, one that comes to mind would probably be “The Fall Guy.” For those looking for holiday cheer, you might be disappointed. Maybe some younger viewers should stay away from the film too. But for those looking for ludicrous action, charismatic stars, great music, an engaging love story, and a fun adventure, it is one of the year’s best flicks. I cannot say “Red One” is the movie equivalent to a lump of coal, but watching the movie at times sort of feels similar to going into my stocking on Christmas morning and finding a toothbrush. It works, but it might not exactly be what I am looking for.

In the end, “Red One” is as the kids say, mid. It is not great, not terrible. Just okay. Do I feel like my time was wasted watching “Red One?” Probably not. Will I watch it again in the future? Also probably not. But “Red One” is not worthy of the same applause that certain Christmas classics continue to get today. Movies like “Home Alone” or “Elf” or if you want to talk about something from this decade, I would say “Red One” does not even hold a candle to “The Holdovers.” If you are having company over during the holidays and need background noise on the television, “Red One” is somewhat serviceable. But you could also do a lot better. I am going to give “Red One” a 5/10.

“Red One” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” 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 “Red One?” What did you think about it? Or, are there any Christmas movies you watch once a year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Gladiator II (2024): This Is Why I am Here… 24 Years Later

Posted on December 4, 2024 by Jack Drees

“Gladiator II” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Paul Mescal (Normal People, Aftersun), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One), Fred Hechinger (Thelma, Eighth Grade), Lior Raz (Hit & Run, Fauda and Segev), Derek Jacobi (Last Tango in Halifax, Vicious), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Nobody), and Denzel Washington (The Equalizer, The Siege). This film is the sequel to the 2000 film “Gladiator” and this time follows Lucius, a slave who seeks revenge against General Acacius after his army invades his home. Doing what he can to avoid death, Lucius must survive in the Colosseum while his mentor plans to overthrow twin emperors Geta and Caracalla.

To this day I have only seen the original “Gladiator” once. As for the one time I saw it, I found my experience to be quite positive. In fact, it is one of Ridley Scott’s better films. When “Gladiator II” was announced, a couple thoughts ran across my mind. My first thought was “Why?” Not just because it is the latest in an endless barrage of sequels, but of all the stories people could have done, “Gladiator” is not one that I would have imagined needed to be continued. In fact, if you remember how the first film ends, it made me question if the franchise would have to defy logic in order to keep going. But in the case of the “Gladiator” franchise, whereas I previously imagined the name pertaining to one person, particularly Maximus from the first film. This sequel proves that “Gladiator” is more than just Maximus. The “Gladiator” name is more of an idea than anything else. Because this time we are focused on Lucius, who also appeared in the original film in the form of an eight year old boy.

If anybody remembers “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” chances are you or someone you know has said the movie is a copy paste of the 1977 franchise original. For the record, “The Force Awakens” is still my favorite film of 2015, partially because while it gets back to basics, it utilizes those basics really well. The film does a great job fleshing out its characters while also delivering action and flying sequences that are much more epic to look at than what we got in the 70s. “Gladiator II” is in a somewhat similar boat. For the record, I do not think the first “Gladiator” is as good as both of those “Star Wars” installments, but I do recognize the Academy Award Best Picture winner for its technical achievements, stellar action scenes, and killer lead performance from Russell Crowe.

Structurally, “Gladiator II” is much like the original, where the film is about a slave fighting for their own freedom. A lot of the steps and challenges our protagonist has to face is similar to the ones Maximus faces in the 2000 predecessor.

That said, while I was invested in Lucius’ journey in this second film, I think Maximus’ journey in the first installment is more compelling. Part of it is because the journey, despite some differences, is like watching the first movie all over again. I would not call it the Dollar Tree version of that journey. It has more pizzazz than that, maybe Five Below would be a halfway decent retail equivalent to use in this case. Part of why I was not as compelled by this sequel compared to the original may be because of Paul Mescal’s performance.

For the record, do not think I am dissing on Paul Mescal as an actor. Mescal does not just a good, but a great job in this film. His performance is commendable and he fits the role he is given. But the thing about Maximus from the first movie, I almost cannot see anyone other than Russell Crowe playing him. On the other hand, I can probably imagine a few other people filling Lucius’ shoes. In fact, not only can I imagine it, I have concrete evidence to prove it! We have already seen Lucius in the first “Gladiator” as a young boy! And that actor did not even come back for this sequel. The guy was not even asked if he wanted to return in the first place! I know Paul Mescal is like a decade younger than Spencer Treat Clark, but still, age comes after everyone in Hollywood these days.

While Mescal’s portrayal as the film’s lead is no Russell Crowe, if the Oscars were tomorrow, I think one performer in “Gladiator II” would have my vote for Best Supporting Actor, and that is Denzel Washington. One thing I noticed about some of the performances in “Gladiator II” is that they would sometimes be delivered with some hyperactivity. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. In the case of Denzel Washington, it not only works, kind of like Russell Crowe in the original “Gladiator,” I cannot see anyone else playing Washington’s character. And the more I watched him through the movie, the crazier he became. There are some things this character does in this movie that elevate his already commanding presence in certain scenes. I would like all of you reading this to find out what some of those things are yourselves. No spoilers. But Washington easily gives one of my favorite performances of the year.

Other than Washington, perhaps the biggest highlight of “Gladiator II” should come as no surprise, the action. The action takes a lot of what is good in the original and puts its own spin on it. It is brutal, smoothly shot, and sometimes tries to fit as much information onto the screen as possible. I knew the action in this film was going to be exciting as soon as it began. There is a sequence in the first few minutes that almost looked like a fun third person video game.

As for the fights in the Colosseum, those do not disappoint. That said, if you are looking for historical accuracy, that is where this movie may not be for you. I am not going to spoil the sequence in the arena that caught me off guard, but if you like your movies to be representative of practical events in history, you may not be a fan of this sequence. That said, I was a fan. A big one at that.

That is not the only historical liberty this movie takes. There is a moment where we see one of the characters reading a newspaper. Only problem, the printing press had not been invented until 1200 years after this film takes place. The more I think about “Gladiator II” and the glorious experience it gave me, I recognize that some of my positives regarding the film require me to bend logic and what I know about history. If I watch this film at home, chances are I could have a different opinion, a different mood perhaps. But from the second row in a crowded auditorium, I was onboard even during the more flawed moments. If anything, I will use the “Tenet” philosophy… “Don’t try to understand it, feel it.” And felt it I freaking did.

In the end, “Gladiator II” is a thrilling, captivating movie that takes you on an exciting ride through ancient Rome. It is not Ridley Scott’s best movie, but much like the original he directed more than two decades ago, the movie nails its atmosphere and delivers a completely riveting experience. The movie is chock full of different kinds of performances ranging from grounded to hyperactive to downright demented. I believed in all of them. Despite what I said about Paul Mescal, do not get me wrong, he truthfully kills it in the film. I cannot wait to see what he does next. As far as action goes, the movie has some cool kills and bloody finishes, but as far as this year for cinema goes, “Dune: Part Two” is still significantly superior in that department. But if you are looking for a fun time at the cinema, this is a solid option. I am going to give “Gladiator II” a 7/10.

“Gladiator II” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Some of you reading this post might be asking if I took part in the Glicked, Wickedator, Wickedglad double feature whatchumacallit. To answer that, I can tell you I did watch both “Gladiator II” and “Wicked,” but not back to back, but I did see “Wicked.” That review is going to wait awhile. As for my next review, that is going to be for the brand new holiday-themed action flick “Red One,” starring Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans. You can also expect reviews soon for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and THEN you will see my review for “Wicked.” Hope that is not too terribly long of a wait. 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 “Gladiator II?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Gladiator” films do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Venom: The Last Dance (2024): 2024’s Comic Book Movie Suck Streak Continues…

Posted on November 16, 2024 by Jack Drees

“Venom: The Last Dance” is directed by Kelly Marcel and this is her directorial debut. This film stars Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Mad Max: Fury Road), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Juno Temple (Fargo, Ted Lasso), Rhys Ifans (The Amazing Spider-Man, The King’s Man), Stephen Graham (Gangs of New York, Snatch), Peggy Lu (Always be My Maybe, Kung Pow: Enter the Fist), Clark Backo (The Changeling, Letterkenny), Alanna Ubach (Meet the Fockers, Legally Blonde), and Andy Serkis (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther). This film is the third installment in the “Venom” franchise and centers around the titular host and his human bud Eddie Brock as the they are on the run for the sake of survival and for the latter to clear his name.

If you are new to Scene Before, you would know I love comic book movies. I think the sub-genre has consistently entertained me for years, and in some cases, given me some of my favorite movies of all time like “The Suicide Squad” or “Avengers: Infinity War.” Those two movies are from different cinematic universes, specifically the Detective Comics Extended Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while the “Venom” movies are also based on Marvel characters, they are not a part of the mainline MCU. Well, sort of. That is unless you count that one scene in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” But as far as the “Venom” movies go, they are under Sony’s Spider-Man Universe, which interestingly, barely has Spider-Man in it. This cinematic universe has been responsible for turds in the wind like “Morbius” and “Madame Web.” If I were to make a worst films of the 2020s list right now, I guarantee you both of those will end up in the top 5. But for some reason, the one successful property in this universe is “Venom,” which I find kind of sad. Not just because it is massively outperforming its partner films, leaving them in the dust. But because if you want me to be honest with you, I do not find these films to be that great. Sure, I liked the second “Venom” movie. I will admit “Let There be Carnage” has its moments. That film delivers some okay action, has a lot of laughs, and the pacing is tightly knit. But the first “Venom?” I could never watch that movie again. I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them.

As far as “Venom: The Last Dance” goes, I do not find the film to be the worst of the trilogy. But that does not mean the movie is good. The film starts off okay. One highlight in particular involves Venom and Eddie fighting a bunch of dudes in a warehouse. That part was entertaining and I really enjoyed some of the gore delivered in that sequence. I thought another highlight was seeing Venom and Eddie hang on the side of a plane thousands of feet in the air. But there is not really anything else worth writing home about. For the most part, the movie is slow. Considering the tight pace of the previous installment, slow is probably the last word I would want to use when describing “Venom: The Last Dance,” but here we are. As for the villain in this film, I honestly almost did not care at all. So I guess you could say that the Sony Spider-Man Universe seems to be taking some inspiration from the much more successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, but maybe not in the way one would want them to.

Even though I think this whole trilogy has been a loss, I think the one win throughout all three films, if you can call it, is the bond between Eddie and Venom. We see Tom Hardy doing an okay job as both characters. And Venom in particular has always been funny. As much as I hated the first movie in this trilogy, I still laugh thinking about the one scene where Venom calls Eddie a “p****” for not jumping from a building and instead taking an elevator to leave. The two continue to have decent chemistry in this third installment. Unfortunately I do not think they are as funny as they were before. But I think when it comes to the duo’s aspirations in this film, that part was nice to see. We find out that Venom wants to go see the Statue of Liberty, and seeing that motivation play out was kind of wholesome. Granted, we find out at the beginning of the film that is not the only reason these two are going to New York, but it is nice to know that this alien character has these humanistic desires. You can tell that these two have grown to care about each other. I just wish the screenplay was more compelling. It lacks an oomph. It lacks a direction. It lacks a substance that makes the film exciting.

Remember Mrs. Chen from the previous movies? Well guess what? She is back! I will admit, when I saw the trailers for this film and I watched her character in context of what was given to me through said trailers, I was curious about what she would do in this film. Honestly though, she does not add much to the plot, the progression of the story, anything. She is literally just there for the sake of being there. Although this time instead of seeing her behind the counter of a convenience store, she makes a trip out to Las Vegas to party it up. She has a penthouse suite, she’s dressed like a queen, the whole nine yards. While I admittedly found Peggy Lu to give a somewhat memorable performance in the film, you could almost take her out and have the outcome of the film barely change at all. Her appearance in this film barely serves the story, and ultimately comes off as a distraction if anything. What happens in Vegas should certainly stay out of “Venom: The Last Dance.”

In my review for “Venom: Let There be Carnage,” I mentioned I had one notable moment that could be described as a guilty pleasure from that movie. Particularly the moment where Eddie and Venom are arguing and the whole thing results in this hilarious fiasco where Venom throws out Eddie’s TV. This leads to another scene some time later where we see a brand new Sony television that was clearly intended to be there for product placement purposes. After all, these movies are from Sony, so they have to show off their products somehow. This trend appears to continue in “Venom: The Last Dance,” but the product placement is likely not as obvious as the last time. For those who do not know, Sony owns “Wheel of Fortune.” When Eddie gets to a casino in Las Vegas, he walks to a Wheel of Fortune slot machine, a common staple at these places, and sits down. The scene at said slot machine is rather short, but sweet. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It is a somewhat accurate representation of the thrill, and agony of gambling. You see Eddie mashing the button like he’s learning how to play “Mortal Kombat,” Venom is getting a sudden sensation he has never experienced before, he goes on saying this is the greatest feeling he’s ever had. But it does not take long for them to hit a low, particularly running out of money. Venom prompts Eddie to smash the machine in rage. The scene delivers some laughs, and as someone who has enjoyed his time at the slot machine, and occasionally questioned myself for sitting down at one in the first place, this is a good representation of what it is like to gamble sometimes.

By the way, if the hooligans at Foxwoods Resort in Connecticut are reading this, give me my freaking money back that you guys snatched from me in September, NOW.

That said, one minor detail, they likely customized the “Wheel of Fortune” slot machine for this movie, because I cannot recall one time I have played those machines, or any others for that matter, and saw an enormous “YOU LOSE” graphic on those machines. I know gambling can be cruel, but they’re not exactly arcade games. The game is never over on slot machines, it just stops at a point until someone keeps it going.

Speaking of minor details, one of my biggest laughs in the movie is the likely the result of me spending way too much time looking into details on passenger airplanes. Yes, like some other people, I have had growing worries about flying certain Boeing aircrafts. But even before planes like the 737 MAX became a hot topic of concern, I knew about some models thanks to YouTube. There is a moment in “Venom: The Last Dance” where Eddie explains to Venom that the two latched off the exterior of a Boeing 757. It takes a bit for Venom to chime in about this, but at one point he shouts, “It was an Airbus A320!” I am by no means an air geek or planespotter, but I do have an appreciation for air travel. I think the whole process behind it and the way it is managed is sometimes a scam, but either way, that particular line made me lose it when Venom said it. Plus the fact that Venom shouted it with such certainty made the execution of the line come off as admirable as possible.

But the more I think about this “Venom” trilogy, the more I think these movies are the kinds that Martin Scorsese would look at and go, “Hard pass.” And you know what? Now that I have sat through all three of these monstrosities, I would be right there with him. To use Scorsese’s words, and I may sound like a hypocrite because this goes against what I said about the pacing earlier, “Venom: The Last Dance” undoubtedly has the pace of a theme park ride. You may be wondering if I am high right now. Just moments ago I said this movie was slow. What kind of theme park ride are we talking about? Well, if we were to talk about faster theme park rides like a roller coaster, such a pace is most evident when we are with Eddie and Venom. Whenever their presence is absent, “Venom: The Last Dance” becomes a complete and total snoozefest. The main duo’s connection kind of saves the movie in the same way it has done so in the franchise’s predecessors. Everything involving Area 51 was boring. Some of the characters in those scenes were not as compelling as maybe they could have been. They felt flat. They felt wooden. If anything, these movies somewhat remind me of the reality TV genre. This is not a comparison to every show within the genre, but if you watch certain reality shows you will notice how hyped up the main cast tends to get sometimes. When I think of this Venom trilogy, I think of the titular character’s voice. I think about how loud that voice can get in select scenes to the point where it drowns out all the other characters. Granted, sometimes it is appealing, but it does not change the fact that this movie feels like noise for the sake of noise.

Also, with this being the third installment of a trilogy, the film tries to go out on a note of finality. Or as Hollywood puts it, “The end… Until we make a billion dollars.” Unfortunately, the note of finality this movie tends to provide feels tacked on. Never once did I get any emotion between these two characters. Part of it is because this property is far from the gold standard of comic book movies, therefore I never had any attachment to these films to begin with. While I thought the second film is good, I think the first one is ridiculous garbage, and at the time, the worst “Spider-Man”-related film I had seen. Then came “Morbius,” then came “Madame Web…” Oh my god. This goddamn timeline. Sony, get your act together! Because I have had it! Either get people who care about these characters, or give the rights to somebody else! I could tell Tom Hardy is probably having a blast making these movies, but I cannot say I am having the best time watching them. They are barely good enough to be eye candy. And it is not even good eye candy. It is like eye candy that is a bit past its expiration date! It can still be edible, but is it really? It is honestly not that good. When I look at Venom in this movie and the many symbiotic creatures we end up seeing, it reminds me of the “Star Wars” prequels in a sense because if you remember those movies in comparison to the original trilogy, you would notice a significantly higher presence of lightsabers, and therefore lightsaber fights. When you look at the original trilogy, lightsabers felt special and were always used to serve the story. In the prequels, the lightsaber use sometimes comes off as an excuse to put said objects on the screen like they are jangling keys. Do not get me wrong, sometimes I was hypnotized by those jangling keys, but still.

My point is, when I look at all the symbiotic creatures, it makes the character of Venom feel less like a one of a kind, and perhaps as commonplace as a Dunkin’ location in New England. Venom does not feel special in this movie. Granted, in the previous films, he faced off against other symbiotic beings, but the count of symbiotic beings in those movies were minimal. There was still a novelty to the concept. You could almost argue that there are some story purposes to the number of creatures in this film, considering this film is set in Area 51. This “Venom” film is definitely going bigger than the previous two installments. Though in contrary to the common saying, bigger does not mean better. In this case, the movie is so big that it leaves me wondering how many of these creatures are in the movie for the sole purpose of selling toys. In fact, there are a couple times in this movie where I was looking at numerous characters or shifts the symbiote itself makes and in my head I’m going, “There’s a toy.” “There’s another toy.” “There’s a toy.” “There’s a Hot Toy.” “There’s an action figure.” “There’s a Funko Pop.” When the trailers showed off the Venomized horse, I was intrigued by how delightfully weird such a concept could be. And when that was shown in the movie, I thought it was fun to watch on screen. But for the most part, I kept looking at the symbiotic creatures and thought the whole idea was overdone by the climax of the film. Now I may sound like a hypocrite, because looking back at say the MCU’s “Iron Man 3,” I was thrilled when the climax went down and all the Iron Man suits showed up. But that was on top of an already engaging film containing characters I cared about and a story that moved along at a decent pace. The finale for “Iron Man 3” was the cherry on top of a sundae whereas the finale for “Venom: The Last Dance” felt like a bunch of creatures I did not care about facing off a threat I did not care about.

Could I watch “Venom: The Last Dance” if I were drunk? That is a question I personally find to be a bit tough to answer, mainly because I do not drink. Maybe this is why I hate these movies. Because I refuse the booze. But in all seriousness, as I look at “Venom: The Last Dance,” this is a movie that would probably be best watched in a setting that includes alcohol. Heck, part of the movie takes place in Vegas! Now you get to watch a movie about a guy and his alien pal going to a place where poor decisions are highly encouraged while also making some poor decisions right from your own couch. Although if you ask me, watching “Venom: The Last Dance” is already enough of poor decision.

In the end, “Venom: The Last Dance” is one of the worst films of the year. The film starts off average and just gets worse as it goes. This is just the latest comic book movie to come out in 2024 that I found to be a waste of time. If it were not for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” every comic book movie that came out this year would have been a dud. Now, it is hard to top the injustice that is “Madame Web,” and thankfully, “Venom: The Last Dance” is an improvement from that schlock. Is “Venom: The Last Dance” as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux?” Surprisingly, no. These are words I did not think I would be saying months ago! For one thing, despite there being more cons than pros in “Venom: The Last Dance,” it does have some entertainment value. There are some funny lines here and there. There are one or two decent action sequences. But it is not enough to make a good movie. The palette of the film is somewhat depressing. The moments that try to trigger your emotions did not get to me. I did not care for a lot of the supporting characters. And to my surprise, the film sometimes moves at a snail’s pace.

I genuinely hope, against all odds, that come December, “Kraven the Hunter” is a good movie. Because I have no faith in it at this point. And why should I have any faith in it? Literally the only film in this Sony Spider-Man Universe that has worked for me so far is “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” The first “Venom” was terrible. “Morbius” sucked. “Madame Web” is one of the worst films I have ever seen. For those of you who have comic book movie fatigue, I cannot relate. We clearly live in different worlds. Again, unpopular opinion I guess, I liked every MCU film since “Endgame.” If the MCU did not exist, and Sony’s stinkers were all that were coming out, there is a chance I could be asking for more quality products, or maybe I would be fatigued. This is supposedly the end of Eddie and Venom’s journey together, but there are future plans for the ongoing Sony Spider-Man Universe. As much as I am peeved at Sony for the state of said universe, I do not envy their position right now. Their most successful property is concluding, and now they supposedly have the comic book movie equivalent of the Island of Misfit Toys to play with. Honestly, if “Kraven the Hunter” is a complete bust, I would not be shocked if Tom Holland never stops playing “Spider-Man.” You think Disney is going to make Hugh Jackman play Wolverine until he’s 90? Ha! Fat chance! Watch what Sony is going to make Tom Holland do with “Spider-Man” if their other projects continue to fail.

I mean… At least there is “Spider-Verse.” That seems to be kicking butt right now.

“Venom: The Last Dance” is the first film directed by Kelly Marcel, and should she continue to direct movies, I hope they are more successful than this. I wish her nothing but the best. But unfortunately, when it comes to comic book movies, “Venom: The Last Dance” is far from the best. I am going to give “Venom: The Last Dance” a 4/10.

“Venom: The Last Dance” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” Also coming soon, the next installment in my Election Days review series, I will be reviewing “On the Basis of Sex,” which is about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 “Venom: The Last Dance?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Venom” movie? For me, the answer is easily “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” But what about you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

	No Other Choice (202… on Shelby Oaks (2024): Chris Stuc…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Killers of the Flower Moon (20…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on One Battle After Another (2025…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Kinds of Kindness (2024): Kind…
	Bugonia (2025): Bu-G… on Poor Things (2023): Emma Stone…