“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” 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!
“Transformers One” is directed by Josh Cooley (Toy Story 4, Inside Out) and stars Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Brian Tyree Henry (Eternals, Godzilla vs. Kong), Scarlett Johansson (Iron Man 2, Don Jon) Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs, Miracle Workers), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Man of Steel), and Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Baby Driver). This film is about the origins of robots Orion Pax and D-16, who eventually become Optimus Prime and Megatron. As a team, these two and several others are given the powers and capabilities to change their planet, Cybertron, forever.
I was born at the tail end of the 1990s, so I was alive at a time when Transformers was continuously shrinking in relevancy. Then a big bang happened in 2007 when the franchise’s first Michael Bay-directed film came out. That is when I first heard about the property, that is when I also started watching it. I had little to no experience with any of the toys beforehand. And no, I have not gone back to watch any of the “Transformers” material from the 20th century. I am somewhat familiar with it. I am aware of “Transformers: The Movie” killing off all the Autobots and that scarring several viewers. But I have not seen the movie myself. But even with my lack of experience of older “Transformers” material, I can confirm that my biggest problem with a number of the live-action “Transformers” films of this era is that they do not feel as character-based as they could be. Not to mention, despite having “Transformers” in the name, the movies are more about the humans than anyone else. Admittedly, I like the first Michael Bay “Transformers” film. I had some fun with “Dark of the Moon.” “Bumblebee” was fantastic. And while it is not the most memorable of the bunch, “Rise of the Beasts” definitely has its moments.
That said, “Transformers One” removes the humans and makes the movie about its titular robots, which is refreshing. The movie is entirely set on Cybertron and features zero scenes on earth. Despite these differences, this movie arguably has the most human story I have witnessed from the “Transformers” franchise yet. It is very much an underdog story about rising up, questioning authority, and embracing the power of friendship.
The main friendship we see is that of Orion Pax (lower right) and D-16 (upper right), played by Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry. I bought every moment of their connection. The two come off as genuine friends. They have some admirable moments where they bond, they stand up for each other, exchange items. The two are best buds. Both of their respective actors do a great job in this film, which relieves me. After all, this is yet another animated project featuring a cast of mostly celebrity voice actors whose names and faces are known in popular live-action projects. These people may as well have been used as a selling point to adults who would be weary about taking their kids to a film like this. Granted, some of these actors have voiceover experience. Scarlett Johansson was in “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie” as well as “Sing 2.” Keegan-Michael Key has several voiceover credits including “Toy Story 4,” the 2019 “Lion King,” “Migration,” and “IF.” He’s doing well for himself in the voiceover department. Everyone does a good job here and the story serves them well.
This movie is perfectly paced. Every action scene had my attention. The character moments are admirable. The humor stuck the landing. It is not the funniest movie I have seen in years, but it had quite a few laughs. The best part about the movie, it follows a paramount rule of show business, which is to leave the audience wanting more. By the end of this film, I was happy with what I got, but there was a point where I wanted to see where these characters would take their adventures next. I remember when I saw “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” which finished on a note where certain ends were not tied together, and I did not really care as much as I could have. This film has a balance in its journey and conclusion where I was satisfied by what was in front of me, but it also left me eagerly hoping to find out what is next.
The film also has a nice polish to its animation. In this age, having bad animation in a major motion picture is kind of a surprise nowadays. But this film, like some others I have been seeing recently, has an individualistic look to it. I cannot say its style offers the diversity of the “Spider-Verse” franchise. But “Transformers One” is stylized just enough to have an identity of its own. The way the movie plays around with some of its shots are fast-paced and immersive. Cybertron itself is sometimes a sight to to behold. This movie is based on toys, so of course the color palette is eye-popping.
Despite my recent positives, I have problems with the movie. For one thing, the storyline is a bit predictable. Sure, as someone who knows about “Transformers,” and the way certain characters are, I know how some characters will wind up by the end of the film. That is not my biggest problem. But there is one other character in the film who as soon as I saw him in the beginning and the way he was written, it was not that hard for me to speculate where exactly this character would be taken. Again, this is a character who has been used in the franchise previously, including one of the Michael Bay movies, all of which I have seen. But I am willing to bet if this was my first “Transformers” anything, I would have nevertheless found this character’s path to be utterly predictable. Maybe unless I was a young child because I have not seen enough movies.
Speaking of young children, I do think that “Transformers One” is a fine family film. Although I would not necessarily say this movie is entirely kid-friendly. At least for all ages that is. There are a couple instances of violence, granted, it is cartoon violence, that kind of push the line as for what you can see in a modern PG movie. Heck, even some of the language pushes the line. There are no f-bombs or s-words here, but Bumblebee repeatedly refers to himself as “Badassatron.” If I had kids I would not prevent them from watching this movie. Heck, part of me would want to put this on for them before “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which is rated PG and came out just before PG-13 was ever slapped onto a film. If my future children watch “Transformers One” say when they are 7 or 8, I have no problem with it. Ask me again if I become a father, but still… “Transformers One” is a good movie with solid action, a good story, and despite some moments that go a bit far, the movie manages to have positive lessons for its viewers to take with them. I would question taking a certain type of four year old for example to see “Transformers One” in the theater, but if they are a little older, things should be fine. Parents, if you are reading this, I say this as someone who is not a parent, so maybe I am just a moron, but use your own judgment. Despite being one of this year’s most attractive and colorful films, “Transformers One” might not be as well-rounded for all ages as say “Inside Out 2.”
In the end, “Transformers One” is an incredible time. Some people might be rejoicing right now and saying that this may be the first great “Transformers” movie in ages, or maybe even ever. For the record, I disagree. I think Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” is good. His third movie is good. Travis Knight’s “Bumblebee” might be my favorite of the live-action ones they have done. “Transformers One” is honestly up there with “Bumblebee” for me. If it were not for being one of this year’s more predictable narratives at times, that would probably be the one significant thing that could make a movie like this better. But “Transformers One” handles its material with excellence. It is great for both adults and kids. It might not be suitable for all kids, but I am sure many kids will enjoy this just fine. I am going to give “Transformers One” an 8/10.
“Transformers One” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another animated movie to talk about soon, and that is “The Wild Robot!” That review will be available soon. Also coming up, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Joker: Folie a Deux…” The most divisive movie in ages. My goodness… That review is going to be fun. …Probably. 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 “Transformers One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie about friendship that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene before is your click to the flicks!
“Borderlands” is directed by Eli Roth (Thanksgiving, The House with a Clock in Its Walls) and stars Cate Blanchett (Carol, Thor: Ragnarok), Kevin Hart (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Ride Along) Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, The Super Mario Bros. Movie), Edgar Ramírez (Jungle Cruise, The 355), Ariana Greenblatt (65, Barbie), Florian Munteanu (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Creed II), Gina Gershon (Showgirls, Snoops), and Jamie Lee Curtis (Freaky Friday, Halloween), this film is based on the video game of the same name and centers around a team who tries to save a girl who holds the key to unimaginable power.
Video game adaptations have seen a bit of a high point in recent years, whether it is the growing success of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies, the high ratings of HBO’s “The Last of Us,” or the massive box office records set by “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” And there are plenty more adaptations on the way. All of those properties are seeing follow-ups in the future. The “Mortal Kombat” movie released in 2021 is getting a sequel. Sony is currently making a live-action film adaptation based on “The Legend of Zelda.” Heck, they are making a “Minecraft” movie, and it is going to be live-action! Interesting choice there… Video game adaptations have come a long way. Many people will tell you that there have not been many great ones. Though a select few seem to have a continued following like the 1995 “Mortal Kombat.”
This is where we come to “Borderlands,” which is based on a game that I have never played. Granted, I have heard of it before walking into the theater, but I could never tell you what it is about, who the primary characters are, or even how good the story is. Interestingly, after seeing this movie, I barely have the stamina to tell you what it is about, who the primary characters are, or even how good the story is.
Hint, on that last part, it sucks!
The story behind “Borderlands” plays out like a boring video game objective. This movie feels as if I was playing a video game and was stuck on a level that is longer than life. Granted, it is somewhat well paced at times and fairly short, but just because it is well paced and short, does not mean it is sweet. Because all the substance within the short runtime is a discombobulated mess.
As I write this review, one of the films that comes to mind that “Borderlands” reminds me of is “Red Notice.” That movie is so notoriously bad and a potential reason why it likely even saw the light of day in the first place is because of star power. Granted, it likely cost a crapton of money, but if you were an executive and had the opportunity to sell a movie with Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, and Gal Gadot on the poster, I am sure you will take it. These are three of the biggest stars in the world and it almost does not matter how good the script is at that point. “Borderlands” is led by several stars including Cate Blanchett, Jack Black, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Hart, and Ariana Greenblatt. That is a stacked cast, and if you were to tell me they’d all be in a movie together, I would at least be curious about it. But when it comes to “Borderlands,” curiosity threw this cat into an incinerator.
In fact, you know what is funny? I said how this movie on paper, without a script, without a treatment, without any idea of how it is going to go, could most definitely be appealing just from imagining what an ensemble poster could look like. You know who thought the same thing? One of the films stars, Jamie Lee Curtis! Why is she in this movie? Because at heart, she is a fangirl. Perhaps not of the “Borderlands” franchise, but she has mentioned the reason why she took the part she had in “Borderlands” is due to Cate Blanchett being in the movie. Look, if I were an actor and I were pitched a movie, and you told me I was going to work with Cate Blanchett, I would be there in a chicken suit for all I care. But it does not change the fact that this dynamic duo of actresses are somewhat miscast. These two performers, to some degree, have aged past their respective parts. Jamie Lee Curtis in particular stands out when I say this. I looked up the character she plays based on how she is presented in the games, and while Curtis somewhat resembles her physically, she definitely looks younger in the source material. The same can be said for Blanchett. I hate saying this because both of these women are not just good at what they do, they are a couple of my favorite performers working today. And their recent outings continue to prove that like Curtis’s “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and Blanchett’s “Tar.” Are their performances in “Borderlands” at least worthy of a thumbs up? I guess?… I would say they are tolerable. As much as I did not love the writing for “Borderlands,” I think Blanchett in particular does the best she can as a character who clearly does not want to be doing what she is doing.
But while Cate Blanchett and Jamie Lee Curtis are busy bringing some of the superior performances to the movie, there is one actor on the cast that has given a voiceover performance so annoying that even Jar Jar Binks is looking at this character and saying, “MEESA GETTING A HEADACHE!” Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, Jack Black as Claptrap. Much like Jar Jar Binks in “The Phantom Menace,” Claptrap is obnoxious, talkative, and spews attempts at humor that would be better executed if it were in a program presented for toddlers. Again, Jamie Lee Curtis and Cate Blanchett do an okay job, but the more I hear Jack Black’s voice here, the more I question how the heck he was even cast in the first place. I hate saying this because I like Jack Black, and he has proven time and time again with the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise that he can unleash not just good, but great voiceover work. I do not doubt that he probably fulfilled the vision the director was probably aiming for at times. But if that is the case, than that vision needs a trip to LensCrafters. Just to paint a picture of how much Jack Black’s character got on my nerves, there is a scene where we see his character getting shot. If you saw the movie you likely know which one I am talking about. In a lot of cases, when I see a character get shot, it is sometimes a dramatic or emotional moment. When Claptrap gets shot, I was ecstatic. I was cheering. I did not care if those bullets killed him. If anything he is getting what he deserves for nearly destroying my brain.
It is really sad to see Jack Black give a performance like the one he gives here, especially considering he killed it in another video game adaptation, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” as Bowser. He was easily my favorite part of the film. Apparently, Black is not done with bringing video game characters to the screen, because he also is seemingly playing Steve in the upcoming “Minecraft” movie. Hopefully Black can come back from his performance as Claptrap, because to say it was harder to sit through than a race between turtles is probably the understatement of the year.
“Borderlands” is kind of like “Guardians of the Galaxy” if the people making the movie decided to suck all the fun out of it. There are no memorable songs that are stuck in my head by the time I leave the theater. All the attempts at humor are stale. The movie has a team of misfits, but none of them have chemistry. If anything, you are stuck with a lead whose attitude very much screams “I’m getting too old for this,” an annoying teen played by Ariana Greenblatt, and a surprisingly unfunny character played by Kevin Hart. Heck, even if Kevin Hart is not in the best movie like “The Wedding Ringer” he can still get a laugh out of me. Not this time around! “Borderlands” is polished and colorful, but is lacking a story with some of polish of its own. If it does not feel been there done that, then it certainly feels excruciatingly snore-inducing.
I was also marveled as to how this film looked at times. Frankly, it has the most unrealistic green screen and special effects I have seen in years. There are certain moments and effects that took me out of the movie, and if they did not, they definitely made me die inside. If you think Cate Blanchett in an orange wig is hard to buy, just wait until you see some of the backgrounds this movie provides. In some ways, this movie does resemble the art style and presentation of the video game. I will give it credit where it is due. But just because the movie is based on a video game, does not mean the backgrounds should look like they are out of a video game. I remember watching the 2020 “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie and seeing the Green Hill Zone on screen. While I could definitely tell there is a fantastical outlook to the place, within the context of the movie and everything else in it, I was able to buy this world. When I look at Pandora in “Borderlands,” I am immediately taken out of the movie. I cannot buy what this movie is trying to sell me.
The video game movie curse seems to be dying. Granted, I cannot think of a perfect video game adaptation. While “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is faithful to the games, it is one of the most cliché productions of the past few years. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a lot of fun, but definitely predictable. “Gran Turismo,” if you can technically call it an adaptation, was a joyous experience, but does not reinvent the wheel in terms of the story, and is sometimes bogged down by product placement. “Borderlands” feels like a product of years past. Specifically the years when many people were waiting for a video game movie they can be excited about but we did not quite reach that point yet. The script is awful, the backgrounds are as realistic as a high school play, the story is unmemorable, and worst of all, my time was surely wasted.
In the end, I had little expectations for “Borderlands” as I was going in, but little did I know what I would be in for. Much like this year’s “Argylle,” “Borderlands” excels at getting the best cast possible, but it equally excels in wasting each member in the ensemble. To add to the discombobulation of this disasterpiece, the film had reshoots a couple years after it went into production, but its director, Eli Roth did not even return to oversee it. So the studio brought in “Deadpool” director Tim Miller. So while I do not know who to wholly blame for certain things that happened in the film, I can easily say as far as Lionsgate is concerned, to call “Borderlands” a misfire would be generous. The writing is some of the worst of the year. The look of the film is atrocious. I am sure that if Cate Blanchett were not living through a pandemic or perhaps friends with Eli Roth since they did “The House with a Clock in Its Walls” together, she would have never signed onto this project. Just one moron’s theory… Again, if I were an actor and you told me Cate Blanchett was going to be in the same project as me, I would be stoked. That said, if I knew what the end product would be, then chances are I would question myself before actually taking on said project. As far as I am concerned, I surely hope “Borderlands” has zero chance of respawning on a screen in front of me ever again, and I am going to give the so-called movie a 1/10.
“Borderlands” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Skincare,” “My Old Ass,” “Reagan,” and “It Ends with Us.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Borderlands?” What did you think about it? Or, if you were cast in a movie, who is an actor that you would want to work with, even if you knew that said movie was going to be terrible? For me, one person that comes to mind is Seth MacFarlane. I have wanted to meet him for years so it would be a dream come true. Let me know in the comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Deadpool & Wolverine” is directed by Shawn Levy (Free Guy, Night at the Museum) and stars Ryan Reynolds (Free Guy, The Adam Project), Hugh Jackman (The Greatest Showman, Reminiscence), Emma Corrin (My Policeman, A Murder at the End of the World), Morena Baccarin (Firefly, Greenland), Rob Delaney (Tom & Jerry, Ron’s Gone Wrong), Leslie Uggams (American Fiction, Empire), Aaron Stanford (12 Monkeys, Nikita), and Matthew Macfadyen (Quiz, Succession). In this film, Deadpool is invited to have a place in the sacred timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but he instead tries to find a variant of Wolverine to save his own universe.
There are no words in cinema in which I have opposed to a greater degree over the past number of years than comic book movie fatigue. And yes, comic book movies are cinema. End of story. While there have been bumps in the road in the comic book movie and television genre, I must admit that I have never once felt the need to jump ship. Despite the DCEU coming to an end, the final efforts of said cinematic universe were all quite fun from “Shazam: Fury of the Gods” to “The Flash” to “Blue Beetle.” That cinematic universe also gave me my favorite DC movie of all time, “The Suicide Squad,” which spun off into the incredible TV show “Peacemaker.” On the Marvel side, I do not give two squirts of urine about what anyone says here… I liked every MCU movie since “Endgame.”
Now the genre has had its downsides in recent years like “Wonder Woman 1984,” “Morbius,” “Madame Web,” and as much as I enjoy the MCU movies, I think some of the Disney+ originals pale in comparison. Although “WandaVision” is must-see TV. That said, the genre has delivered way more positives than negatives for me over the years, so I was excited for “Deadpool & Wolverine.” I love the first couple of “Deadpool” movies, I was excited to see what Kevin Feige, Ryan Reynolds and Shawn Levy can do with an R-rated MCU flick, so it was definitely going to bring some novelty to this ongoing saga. Admittedly, I never grew up with Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine unlike say Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man. “X-Men” was just never a part of my household at the time. But I have seen a few of those movies, which I have mostly enjoyed. I think Jackman does a good job in the role, he is a fine actor, so it was going to be fun to see what he would bring to this role one more time.
Safe to say, “Deadpool & Wolverine” was one of my most anticipated films of 2024. So how did it turn out?
It is one of the best comic book movies of the past few years.
To some of you reading this, such a statement may either mean a lot or a little to you. Because again, unlike some of you, I have not been fatigued by this sub-genre. But I honestly think if some of you reading this were done with Marvel movies or comic book movies in general, this film could revitalize some of your interest in that realm of film. Now, is it the best MCU movie ever? No it is not. In fact, the biggest problem I have with “Deadpool & Wolverine” is actually the biggest problem I had with many other MCU titles. Particularly the villain. Though I will say the villain this time around is a bit of a step up from “The Marvels,” which again, I had fun with.
But this movie is not about the villain, it is about the heroes. It is about two comic book icons coming together at long last. In fact, this movie, to my lack of surprise, reminds me of “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” If you read my review for that film, you would know that I refer to that it as a love-letter to the Spider-Man character, and the multiple eras such a character represents. That is what “Deadpool & Wolverine” is in a different way. Because this film not only serves as a love letter to the Deadpool and Wolverine characters. It also manages to sprinkle some love to an era of comic book movies that means a quite a bit to a certain group of people, even if they managed to vary on their level of success and failure.
What makes the release of “Deadpool & Wolverine” such a big deal is that it is one of the rare attempts at Disney making an R-rated film. This is a concept that is rather novel to the brand, particularly in its main line of films. Sure, Disney used to release films under Touchstone Pictures, which has its share of R-rated titles. Another defunct label of Disney’s, Hollywood Pictures, also had films with R-ratings. And now they have 20th Century Studios, which has not stopped with its mature slate. But this is the first R-rated Marvel Studios title. I honestly thought we would never see this day. Sure, DC has some R-rated titles in its own cinematic universe like “Birds of Prey” and “The Suicide Squad,” but neither of those films were particularly successful at the box office. That said, the first film came out just before a pandemic and the second film simultaneously released on HBO Max during a time when some people were weary about going to the cinema, so there is that. Yes, DC also has “Joker,” which was the first R-rated film to make a billion dollars at the box office, but I did not think something as popular as the MCU, which attracts a large audience, would have the guts to make something like this. In fact, if I were an executive at Disney, I too, would be somewhat weary of doing an R-rated film there. I would love it from a creative perspective, but from a financial and brand perspective, it is tough to justify.
But this film unleashes all the creativity it can, and judging by the box office total so far, it only helped the film financially. Conceptually, this film is quite clever. It manages to take certain portions of the Fox “X-Men” universe and sprinkle them over with things from the MCU and blend them together perfectly. This film has the DNA of the past two “Deadpool” movies, but it manages to make the universe feel more epic. It is a perfect hybrid of your typical MCU movie and your typical “Deadpool” movie. The tones never feel like they are clashing. It is like they took the first couple “Deadpool” movies and decided to put more money on the screen. The action sequences are incredibly stylistic and thrilling. Each one is as sweet and flashy as the last. This film has a marvelous opening sequence that could potentially make for the most exciting first five to ten minutes the MCU has ever done.
Also like “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” this film is also filled with moments that if you see this in a theater at a certain time and place, will likely result in audiences cheering and applauding. Only thing is, with “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” I was somewhat able to predict pretty much all the surprises that happened to be in those movies. The “Deadpool” movies have repeatedly mastered its marketing campaigns, and this one is no exception because it kept so many things under wraps to the point where certain moments happened that caught me totally off guard throughout the runtime. I would love to talk about some of these events, but I will let those of you who have not seen this movie enjoy the magic of checking them out yourselves.
But as for the things we know going in, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman have perfect chemistry as the titular characters. Knowing their relationship behind the scenes, this is a film that despite the existence of “Logan,” felt like a passion project these two wanted to do for years. I do not know what it took to get Hugh Jackman to play Wolverine one more time, but knowing how fun it is to watch these two together, it was worth it. This is primarily Deadpool’s story. The movie starts with Deadpool, features the character prominently in situations where he has to make tough choices and fight for the people he loves, but Wolverine gets a lot of screentime and every minute is well utilized.
Despite this being Deadpool’s story, we do not really get a lot of time with the characters from the past Deadpool movies like Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Vanessa, Yukio… They are in the movie. But their roles in the film are minor. They do not have a ton to do on screen even though they play a part in the plot and outcome.
In fact, on the more mainline “X-Men” side, Wolverine is for the most part, the main character we see in regards to that universe. That is not necessarily a bad thing because the film focuses more on making a robust story for its main duo rather than shoehorning as many X-Men characters as possible. It feels more like a movie than a stale reunion special. The film honors the legacies of both of these characters while giving them both another story for audiences to love. Maybe even Hugh Jackman’s swan song… Until he decides to make a crapton more money.
As mentioned, “Deadpool & Wolverine” comes with many of the successes and failures of the other MCU films. While the titular characters shine, Cassandra Nova, played by Emma Corrin is a semi-lackluster villain. Now, she is not all bad. During the first half of the film, I did not have any problems with her. I thought she was rather menacing and intimidating. I think they did a good job at introducing her. But by the end of the film, she came off as cliche-riddled and power hungry. There was not as much depth as I would have wanted for a character like this. In fact, I am rather surprised to say that I left this movie liking Matthew Macfadyen’s performance as Paradox a bit more in comparison. Not that I think Macfadyen’s a bad actor, he is great. But despite his role being smaller than Cassandra Nova’s in the grand scheme of things, his scenes are more memorable on top of his charisma and personality.
This film is not just a potential revitalization of the MCU, it is not just a finale for the Fox “X-Men” universe, it is not just a love letter to several comic book movies that came before, but it is also one that is not afraid to make fun of the industry. If you have followed either of the cinematic universes this movie represents, know a little bit about how filmmaking works, or even followed movie news over the past number of years, this film may be able to hit you in some way. There is one moment where Deadpool sort of highlights the collective reaction of the ongoing multiverse saga, which even as someone who appreciates said saga, it made me laugh. This is arguably the funniest movie in the MCU. Humor-wise, it is up there with the first “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Avengers: Infinity War.” Only thing, I would say those movies have jokes that stick the landing perfectly for general audiences, whereas the humor in “Deadpool & Wolverine,” while still likely to get large crowds laughing, is sometimes a bit more niche and maybe not for everyone. “Deadpool & Wolverine” is full of comedy gold from fantastic fourth wall breaks, excessive, yet well placed f-bombs, and some brilliant visual gags. There was no shortage of cackles in my screening. And if you go see this film in a crowded theater, I am sure you will have the same experience.
As far as the MCU goes, I would have say that “Deadpool & Wolverine” is definitely one of the better films. It is easily my favorite MCU installment post-“Endgame.” In the case of the proper “Deadpool” movies, I would still say the first film is my favorite, but this is a slight step up from “Deadpool 2.” I think it is a little bit funnier, a bit more action-packed, and has more memorable moments. “Deadpool & Wolverine” comes off as the most ambitious movie of its trilogy, and it shows. This has a slightly different feel from the past two “Deadpool” movies but manages to maintain what makes those predecessors great. If this is your genre, you have to see this movie as soon as possible. It is one that if you have friends or more mature family members in your circles, you have to watch with them just to see their reaction. Can you take a 10 year old to this movie? That’s a hard sell… Depends on the 10 year old. There are some things that are a bit tamer in this film compared to the original, but it is filled to the brim with excessive violence and foul language. I will let the world’s parents judge for themselves on whether or not they want to be remembered as the cool cats who gave their kids the memory of a lifetime.
As an entry point to this genre of movies and the MCU, there are definitely more accessible films like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Iron Man” or even “Ant-Man,” but I would say you’d be okay should you decide to skip the first two “Deadpool” movies, the “X-Men” films, or any of the MCU installments. Like all the other MCU followups, it definitely helps watching the past entries or even briefly brushing up on Wikipedia as you may be able to pick up on some nuance. But you can still watch “Deadpool & Wolverine” on its own and have a good time. The movie is stacked with fan service, so if you are hyperactively into these movies, chances are you will lose your mind in select moments of this latest installment. But if you are simply looking for a killer time at the movies, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is practically guaranteed to give you just that.
In the end, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is a blast that honors the past of the comic book movie genre. There is not a lot that I can complain about when it comes to the overall experience of this movie other than maybe how they handled the villain. But again, despite Cassandra Nova’s flaws, I will not deny that she had her moments and Emma Corrin did an okay job playing the character. If there is one movie that you should make an effort to see this summer, look no further than “Deadpool & Wolverine.” Great action, killer soundtrack, fun chemistry between the leads… It is a riot! “Deadpool & Wolverine” is now my favorite movie of 2024, and I am going to give it a 9/10.
“Deadpool & Wolverine” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review. My next reviews are going to be for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Deadpool & Wolverine?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Marvel movie from the 20th Century Fox era? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Twisters” is directed by Lee Isaac Chung (Minari, The Mandalorian) and stars Daisy Edgar-Jones (Normal People, Under the Banner of Heaven), Glen Powell (Top Gun: Maverick, Anyone But You), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Brandon Perea (Nope, The OA), Maura Tierney (NewsRadio, ER), and Sasha Lane (Loki, American Honey). This is a standalone sequel to the 1996 film “Twister,” and is about a former tornado chaser who comes to Oklahoma with a meteorologist to scan tornados.
While there are a fair share of original movies being made, it is also accurate to say that franchise continuations tend to stand out more nowadays than said originals. This even includes “Twisters,” a movie I have been looking forward to since the first trailer came out. Between the aura of Glen Powell, the energetic vibes, the riveting tornado shots, and a pinch of that summer blockbuster feel, I was stoked. But here’s the thing, at the time, I have still yet to watch the original “Twister.”
I may have heard “Twisters” was happening prior to the Super Bowl, but chances are I did not care about it. Why? Well, it is the same reason why I have yet to see “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.” It is the same reason why I am probably not going to see “Alien: Romulus” in the theater. As good as those movies look, I have some catching up to do when it comes to those properties. Thankfully, unlike the several movies both of those franchises offer, “Twister” only has one film for me to worry about. And as for that 1996 original movie, I thought it was rather fun. It had some immersive camerawork, a decent cast, a good amount of tornado action, and at times, an incredible score by Mark Mancina.
How does this standalone sequel compare to the original? I mean… It is fine I guess. It has its moments. I would not exactly rave about it, but I do not hate it. “Twisters” is kind of like Sbarro pizza. It is not the best of its class, but if it were one of the only options, I would tolerate its existence. Did I have fun with “Twisters” while watching it? Of course I did. And I would say that I am glad I watched this film in a theater as opposed to my house for the first time. This is definitely the kind of movie you would want to see on a giant screen, perhaps with a few friends. I cannot completely confirm or deny as I saw the film by myself, but still, that is the vibe I got.
“Twisters” pays respect to its predecessor. This was something I heard going into this movie, and was honestly quite worried about. Part of me was worried that this would be a beat for beat remake. While it is not quite as beat for beat as the 2019 edition of “The Lion King,” “Twisters” has a lot of similarities to its 1996 counterpart. There is a scene in a movie theater, kind of like how the original had a scene in a drive-in. The line in this film, “We got twins,” is very much a tribute to 1996’s “We got cows.” It’s little things like those that can easily be picked up along the way if you pay enough attention. Speaking of repeated techniques, “Twisters” is shot entirely on 35mm film. The average viewer is probably not going to care about a detail like that, but as I watched the movie, it definitely had a rugged palette in every frame. Even if the frame looked clean, it still had a sense of character to it that put me into each scene. With that in mind, I would still claim “Twisters” has enough material in it for the movie to stand on its own. It definitely feels like it belongs in the same universe as its predecessor, but by no means is it a complete ripoff despite some degree of copy and pasting.
One of the differences between this film and the original however, is the cast. This time around, there is, by complete coincidence, only one cast member from the original movie who returns for this follow-up. And they do not even play the same character. Instead, we have room for new stars including Daisy-Edgar Jones, who is finely cast in the lead role of Kate. You have Anthony Ramos, who brings a lot of energy to the screen as Javi. But if you see this movie yourself, chances are you are going to agree that there is one true star of the show…. Glen Powell as Tyler Owens.
Some argue that the movie star is dead, but if there is anyone who could potentially defeat that argument, Glen Powell is honestly a contender. As much as I hated “Anyone But You,” I thought Powell was far and away the best part of the film. Much like that movie, he oozes an endless stream of charisma. Every line out of him is perfectly delivered. His presence is incredible. If I had to come up with a word or two to describe Powell in “Twisters,” it would be “rockstar.” The moment he steps on screen, it is almost like this movie finished its opening act, and now he comes out and unleashes a sense of star power that is almost indescribable. I have no desire to ride a tornado. It is not my thing, but if anyone were to convince me I should, Tyler Owens might be the guy. Of course, there are still movie stars out there who have developed their career to a high like Dwayne Johnson, Tom Cruise, Ryan Reynolds… They have been on the scene for years and to some degree, they are all able to get butts into seats. After seeing “Twisters,” I am convinced Glen Powell is going to be looked back on years from now as one of this generation’s most adored talents. If there is a movie coming out that doesn’t exactly look great, I am sure it will get a boost at the box office if you simply put Powell’s face on the poster.
I also like the background behind Powell’s character. The movie establishes that Tyler Owens is a successful YouTuber. Owens has built a channel documenting his storm chases, earning him the nickname, “Tornado Wrangler.” He definitely delivers the energy you would expect out of a popular YouTuber or vlogger, I think Powell did a good job at channeling the traits I am used to seeing from some of my favorite personalities. The one thing though I would note is that Owens probably needs to work on his copyright game. Now, on YouTube, you can probably have some videos with copywritten material fly depending on the circumstances. There are times they can go unacknowledged or the owner of such material may not even care. But typically, it is wise for creators, especially for those trying to make money on their videos, to use royalty free music in their content, unlike Owens, who is making a video while blasting a copywritten song in the background. Just something that I noticed during the film that I probably would have changed if I were in control. I think it would have been funny to have Owens playing some fairly often used Kevin MacLeod song. It would have caught me really off guard in a good way.
Though I have to be real, much like the original “Twister,” this movie is probably not going to have much replay value for me. Am I glad I saw “Twisters?” Yes. Especially considering I saw it in the theater. But compared to the original, while “Twisters” is definitely equal in its own right when it comes to star power, feels a tad weaker when it comes to characterization. But at the same time, the characters do to a degree feel fairly fleshed out. The script is not really anything to write home about. The biggest thing this movie has going for it is Glen Powell’s personality. Honestly, his aura stands out more than the tornados themselves. That said, the sound is quite immersive. The film is decently shot. And it definitely has a fun factor to it. It is a fine movie to watch in order to kill a couple hours and maybe never watch again. You will not have any regrets watching this movie, but maybe not a ton of fond memories in the years down the road depending on your viewing experience.
In the end, “Twisters,” as a theatrical experience, is definitely one you would not want to miss. If it is playing in a theater near you, I would totally justify going to watch it. But this might just be a one and done film. There is not a ton of flair to it. It is not the best film of the year, nor is it the worst. For me, it is somewhere in the middle. I think the original is a slightly better experience, but if you do enjoy the original, you might enjoy this one to some degree as well. I am going to give “Twisters” a 6/10.
“Twisters” is now playing in theaters and is available to buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the latest entry to the MCU and one of my most anticipated movies of the year. You will have to find out next week if it lives up to the hype. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Twisters?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Twister” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is directed by George Miller (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) and stars Anya Taylor-Joy (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The New Mutants), Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Tom Burke (Mank, The Souvenir), and Alyla Browne (Sting, Three Thousand Years of Longing) in a prequel film that follows its titular character’s origins throughout various stages of her life, before she meets Mad Max.
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is one of those films that had my interest ever since it was first announced. And as much as I know people love Charlize Theron’s take on the character back in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” I was very much excited to see what Anya Taylor-Joy could do with the role. She is one of the hottest names in Hollywood right now, racking up several projects that have given her a diverse resume. Everything from Jane Austen adaptations like “Emma.,” to visionary horror titles like “Last Night in Soho,” to a video game adaptation that has become one of the decade’s most mainstream titles, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” I am proud to say that when it comes to Anya Taylor-Joy’s take on the Furiosa character, I was not disappointed. Like all of her other roles, she plays the part well. Despite this movie having a female protagonist, this movie feels pretty masculine. And I mean that in a positive way. As I watched this movie, I was on a bit of a high, and Anya Taylor-Joy is the drug that fueled it.
In fact, all the actors in this film are great. None of them feel out of place. Not only does Taylor-Joy provide a superstar outing as Furiosa, but her younger variant, played by Alyla Browne, also shines bright. Lachy Hulme does a good job as Immortan Joe, who we previously saw played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in “Fury Road,” rest in peace. In fact, that’s not his only role in the film, because he is credited with playing Rizzdale Pell, a gang member serving under this film’s most enjoyable character to watch, Chris Hemsworth’s Dementus.
They say a movie is only as its good as its villain, so I am happy to report that Dementus will end up being one of my favorite on-screen villains I have seen this year. While Chris Hemsworth is playing a different character entirely, it is safe to say that he is putting the “mad” in “Mad Max.” He’s over the top, bombastic, and kind of wonderfully demented. Sometimes he is so rage-filled it is kind of artistic. There is something beautiful about it. Also, I love how he has a line twisting a classic phrase where he utters, “Lady and gentlemans.” Chef’s kiss.
And much like Hemsworth’s Thor sometimes, I can say Dementus’ beard game in this movie is strong. Just look it it. I have grown out my facial hair quite a bit from time to time, but I cannot say I have ever grown a beard like the one Dementus has. Adding to the beautiful rage of this character, Hemsworth himself has something to say to back that up. Speaking with Variety, Hemsworth goes on about his experience in the makeup chair…
“Twas justifiably irritated by the end of it. That really helped my performance-there was a nice amount of pent-up rage simmering under the surface.”
Take this as a lesson kids. If you work hard enough, and learn some patience by sitting in a chair, you too can entertain tons of people by becoming a bit of a maniac. Inspiring stuff.
That said, looking back at “Furiosa,” this movie ends on a bit of an interesting note. I do not want to spoil everything that happens in this film, but if you are a novice to this franchise, I will remind you once again this is a prequel to “Mad Max: Fury Road.” A film that, and I apologize to the thousands of cinephiles I am inevitably going to irritate, I find to be a tad overhyped.
Now to find that flame shield…
Nevertheless, I recognize that a lot of work went into “Mad Max: Fury Road,” not to mention a lot of money. Based on research via IMDb, the total budget of the film comes out to $150 million. Despite being older and less expensive, it still looks better than some of the more recent Marvel projects for example, including Hemsworth’s own “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Just so we have the statistics in place, I will remind you that “Furiosa” cost more than “Fury Road,” specifically $168 million. For the record, Wikipedia says “Fury Road” cost anywhere between $154.6–185.2 million, but if I had to compare “Fury Road” and “Furiosa” side by side, I would say that “Fury Road,” depending on what the actual budget is, feels like the slightly bigger bang for the studio’s buck. It is also a slightly better movie as a matter of fact. Story-wise, both of these movies do not have the most Shakespearean of plots or happenings. They are pretty simple when it comes to their concepts. And honestly, in the case of “Furiosa,” I sometimes wish I were more interested in some of the goings on that we witnessed on screen. “Furiosa” has a runtime of 148 minutes, and I truly felt that runtime. I have no problems with movies going on for that long. In fact on paper, one of the pros of having such a long runtime for a movie like this is that we get to see some pretty cool extended action sequences. There are some action scenes that go on for quite a bit and had me glued to the screen. But substance-wise, “Furiosa” feels kind of thin. Does this movie try to deliver a fun story? I guess. But other than seeing Furiosa grow up, I did not feel as engaged with this film as I wanted to. That said, one thing I was engaged by was seeing Furiosa’s exposure to certain torturous acts, and how much said acts shaped the perspective of the character throughout the film.
But this film ends on an interesting, yet rather fitting note. I do not think this is a spoiler. If you think otherwise, you do you. But the end credits for “Furiosa” start with a few minutes of clips essentially detailing “Mad Max: Fury Road.” After all, again, this film leads into that one. Though it got me thinking… Upon leaving the movie, I did not say I wanted to go back and watch “Furiosa” a second time. If anything, the credits made me think I should potentially revisit “Fury Road” instead. While “Furiosa” is well done in its own right, it made me wish I were watching something better. I have seen “Fury Road” twice, and even though I think it is not the masterpiece some call it, I recognize there is plenty to like about it. And I think there is more to like about “Fury Road,” than “Furiosa.” Sure, “Furiosa” could stand as its own movie, but at the end of the day, it doubles as the world’s most robust, compelling advertisement for “Mad Max: Fury Road.”
Much like “Fury Road,” “Furiosa” tends to use star power to sell itself between the casting of Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth. However, from an effects perspective, the money is definitely there, but it does not mean the quality is there. What makes the look of “Fury Road” so appealing at times is despite knowing it is a movie, it tends to look as raw and lifelike as it could in such an environment on display. In “Furiosa,” there are a fair share of effects that look like they could belong in a blockbuster movie, but they feel like they belong more in a demo for the sake of showing off a new piece of tech. There is a lot less verisimilitude with these effects this time around. While “Furiosa” does not have the worst special effects I have seen, they are a significant step down compared to its predecessor.
And that’s the thing about this movie. It reminds me a lot of “Fury Road,” but it does not do anything as exciting as it. Plus between some long buildup, some forgettable characters, and scenes that probably did not need to go on as long as they did, I do not think “Furiosa” is worth watching a second time. How does it compare to the other “Mad Max” installments? I will be real, I have not seen any of the other ones. I want to, I just have not had the time. I could tell George Miller made the movie the way he intended. I just wish it were better.
In the end, “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” has plenty of positives. But there is not a lot in this movie, maybe other than Hemsworth as the villain, that truly stands out. Do not get me wrong. Anya Taylor-Joy does a good job as the title character. The film, despite some overpolishing, is easy on the eyes. The color palette of the film is appealing. I say this film looks like an over the top tech demo, and I meant such a thought as a bit of a dig. But it does not mean the film all looks bad. Also, if the Oscars were tomorrow, “Furiosa” would definitely be nominated for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. But when all is said and done, I would rather watch “Mad Max: Fury Road” one more time as opposed to watching “Furiosa” again. I am going to give “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” a 6/10.
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is now playing in theatres and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Thelma,” the new movie starring June Squibb as an elderly woman who tries to get her money back from scammers. Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga?” What did you think about it? Or, which Furiosa-centric story do you think is superior? “Fury Road” or “Furiosa?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Inside Out 2” is directed by Kelsey Mann (Party Central, Megas XLR) and stars Amy Poehler (Parks and Recreation, The House), Maya Hawke (Asteroid City, Do Revenge), Kensington Tallman (Drama Club, Home Sweet Rome!), Liza Lapira (NCIS, The Equalizer), Tony Hale (Veep, Arrested Development), Lewis Black (The Daily Show, Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law), Phyllis Smith (The OA, The Office), Ayo Edebiri (The Bear, Bottoms), Lilimar (Batwheels, Cleopatra in Space), Grace Lu (Fright Krewe, Super Wings), Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green, Adèle Exarchopoulos (Blue is the Warmest Color, Passages), Diane Lane (Let Him Go, Extrapolations), Kyle MacLachlan (Dune, Twin Peaks), and Paul Walter Hauser (Richard Jewell, Cruella). This film once again follows the emotions inside Riley’s head. As Riley enters puberty, the five core emotions of the previous movie face the reality that they could potentially be replaced with newer, more complex emotions. Meanwhile, Riley tries to properly navigate herself and fit in while attending hockey camp.
Pixar is one of those studios that I automatically associate with greatness. What Studio Ghibli likely is to Japan, Pixar is to the United States. A group of talented individuals making some of the most mature, watchable animation out there. When it comes to the Disney library, I tend to prefer Pixar’s work over their own in-house studio. That said, I still think “Raya and the Last Dragon” is one of the best animated films of the decade. While studios like DreamWorks and Illumination tend to have their place in moviegoing, when I watch an animated movie, chances are I am going to prefer it to be under the Pixar banner. Their track record over the past few decades has been astounding. With the exception of “Elemental,” I like every film they have put out so far. That said, when they greenlight a sequel, a part of me asks why. Granted, part of the answer is likely money. But even with that in mind, I question the creativity factor that would go into such movies like “Toy Story 4.” I felt the same way about “Inside Out 2,” which I was kind of intrigued by, but I was worried that it would not have the same impact as the first one. I thought the original installment was one of the best films of the 2010s. Then again, even though I thought “Toy Story 4” is the worst of the franchise, it is still an incredibly watchable, admirable flick. Maybe “Inside Out 2” would meet a similar fate.
To my lack of surprise, “Inside Out 2” is in fact a step down from the original. In fact, when it comes to the Pixar lineup, I would put “Inside Out 2” in the lower or middle tier. But as I have said before, Pixar movies that do not meet the higher tier are still, most of the time, solid enough to possess a level of quality that plenty of movies would kill to meet.
The good news is with “Inside Out 2” is that it does a nice job at evolving its characters. In this film we see Riley become a teenager, she is going through puberty, and we get a decent look into how that all plays out. Inside her mind, we see all the complexities of her emotions begin to rise as we meet new characters like Anxiety, Envy, Ennui, and Embarrassment, all of whom seem to serve their purpose. And these characters, on the surface, tend to accurately represent what a lot of teens probably go through at that time of their lives. Between their identity, seeing other people have things they do not, aging out of things that they may or may not actually want to age out of. If it did not properly represent me at that age, I am sure it will do so for somebody else.
On that note, Pixar usually does a good job with casting. Of course, Amy Poehler is back, and she brings a powerhouse performance as Joy. Phyllis Smith also does a great job as Sadness. Both characters continue to be the heart and soul of the franchise to some degree. Lewis Black also shines as Anger. But Maya Hawke as Anxiety is a serious contender to go down as the year’s most memorable voice performance. Not only is this character fantastically written and conceived, but she is performed at such a pace that I would automatically think of when it comes to Anxiety. Even if she is talking normally, her voice sounds like she is moving a million miles a minute. She is hyperactive, a little zany, but not too much. And there is one scene we witness towards the film’s climax where she is stunningly animated. Her movement in said scene very much fits her name. Her general design fits the role too. Anxiety is one of those characters that looks appealing, but kind of gets on your nerves once you get to know her. I say that in a good way of course, her purpose in the film is brilliantly realized. She is the closest character this film has to an antagonist, but I would not necessarily call her a villain. But much like some of the best villains or antagonists, Anxiety is someone whose perspective you can easily understand, possibly even appreciate. That said, I was still able to root for the core emotions throughout the movie. For Riley’s sake, I wanted them to get their way as the film went on.
The best thing about these two “Inside Out” movies, in addition to many other entries to Pixar’s library, is that there is a lot for grown-ups to appreciate to a greater degree than children. There is a segment where we get deeper into Riley’s mind and visit some of her more archived possessions. Two of which include characters named Bloofy (Ron Funches) and Pouchy (James Austin Johnson). First off, from an animation perspective, I love how this movie seamlessly blends these 2D characters into its 3D environment. Second, if you ever seen an episode of say “Dora the Explorer,” either as a child growing up or as a guardian watching over somebody else, I guarantee the moments that these two are on screen are going to get a laugh out of you. I knew seconds after they came on screen exactly what they were going for. These characters even did the cliche where they’re breaking the fourth wall, asking the viewer what they think should be done. Points all around. This movie amazingly described a lot of people’s childhoods while they were sitting in front of the television. And going back to the animation style, these are not even the only two styles we see, because the film also introduces a character named Yong Yea, who very much has a design similar to the artstyle of characters from the “Final Fantasy” games. These styles complement each other beautifully and never come off as distracting.
If you must know, “Inside Out” has arguably my favorite ending in an animated movie. It is to some degree, one of the simplest climaxes in a major motion picture. But what goes down in said climax is nothing short of emotional. It hits me every time I watch it because it shows that sometimes in life, happiness and sadness can work together to make you feel whole. In this film, the stakes feel a little bit bigger. Not just inside Riley’s head, but also outside. That said, one thing that felt a little smaller in this film’s ending compared to the last one is the emotional impact. The ending is really good and makes complete sense. But it seemed to be missing a moment that I took with me as the movie ended. There is one moment, or more accurately, a repeated line, that I continue to think about. Each time it was said, it truly showed what Riley was going through, and how she was perhaps letting her emotions and desires get the best of her. But with the last movie, you have multiple moments that I will list among some of the greatest in cinematic history between “Take her to the moon for me,” and Joy and Sadness allowing Riley to have a second to shed a tear when she needed it most. There are no moments in “Inside Out 2” that quite reach that level.
The structure of this movie is one to admire. Because the film is partially about Riley trying to get on a hockey team. In reality though, as much screentime as we get out of it, you could argue it is a borderline B-plot. The A-plot is inside Riley’s head as the B-plot is happening. That plot being the fight to make sure Riley is mentally stable. Because the reality is if Riley does not make the team, deep down, she still, depending on the state of her emotions inside her, has her mental health. The emotions’ jobs are to make sure Riley is herself and in control. And if she ends up making the hockey team, that is just bonus points. But if Riley reaches an extreme that could alter the course of her life for the worse, then chances are they are failing at doing their jobs.
If you think “Inside Out 2” is better than the original, I could totally understand why. But I feel like the first does a slightly better job at addressing the problems Riley and her emotions go through. It also possibly benefits from its originality. At the time, I do not think I have seen any concept like it. The first film exemplifies what Pixar does best. Taking inanimate concepts and heightening them to the point where they can make you laugh, cheer, and cry. “Inside Out 2” takes a lot of what is great about the first movie and builds on it, but it is not quite as memorable or as impactful as the material we got back in 2015. That said, there is a reason why the film has made more than a billion dollars at the box office. Because it is quite watchable. Good for kids, good for adults, good for everybody. Much like “Wall-E” did for me when I was younger, I am sure young children will probably watch this in their childhood and see it one way, and maybe come back to it as an adult and watch it with a new, matured set of eyes. And it is possible they might enjoy it more at such an age.
In the end, “Inside Out 2” is, again, not the best Pixar movie. But it is still a really good watch. I definitely found more enjoyment out of it than their previous feature, “Elemental,” so that is quite a positive thought if you ask me. The emotions are all well written and performed. I even liked Liza Lapira filling in for Mindy Kaling as Disgust. I thought she did a great job. Tony Hale as Fear was also quite good. He was very expressive throughout the picture. Although I could tell there was a difference in his voice compared to Bill Hader’s. That said, it is a good thing he is putting his best spin on the performance as opposed to doing a crappy impression of the previous one. The score of these past two films tend to serve as a character of its own sometimes. It was touching in the first one, and the same can be said here. As soon as the music played in this start of the film, I felt like I was instantly transported back to this universe. But as usual for Pixar movies, this film is beautifully animated. And kind of like the first film does in its abstract thought scene, “Inside Out 2” manages to seamlessly diversify its animation style. It looks great and never feels out of left field. I am going to give “Inside Out 2” a 7/10.
One last thing… I was a bit on the fence when they announced an “Inside Out 2,” partially because of how good the first one was. Having seen this second film, I can confirm the first one is far superior. But also having seen the second film, it honestly got me thinking… As much as I enjoy franchises like “The Incredibles” or “Finding Nemo,” they feel finite compared to “Inside Out” when you consider they’re about a certain group of characters. Even though the franchise revolves around the mind of Riley, I would not mind seeing inside the mind of a young boy or the mind of someone entering their 50s, or someone working the graveyard shift. There are tons of possibilities for the “Inside Out” franchise. If they greenlight an “Inside Out 3” with the Riley as the center, I am there. If they greenlight an “Inside Out” spinoff with somebody else as the center, count me in. I am game no matter what.
“Inside Out 2” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga!” Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Thelma,” “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Inside Out 2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your personal favorite of the “Inside Out” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Garfield Movie” is directed by Mark Dindal (Chicken Little, The Emperor’s New Groove) and stars Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The LEGO Movie), Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers, Pulp Fiction), Hannah Waddingham (The Fall Guy, Ted Lasso), Ving Rhames (Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Jack the Giant Slayer), Cecily Strong (Schmigadoon!, Saturday Night Live), Harvey Guillén (What We Do in the Shadows, Eye Candy), Brett Goldstein (Ted Lasso, SuperBob), Bowen Yang (Saturday Night Live, Awkwafina is Nora from Queens), and Snoop Dogg (The Joker’s Wild, Training Day). This film is inspired by the “Garfield” comic strip and centers around the iconic orange feline who reunites with his father all the while needing to complete a high-stakes heist.
The “Garfield” property is one that I never found myself overly attached to. As a child who grew up in the 2000s, I have come across the Bill Murray-led “Garfield: The Movie” and watched it a couple times. I did not have a passion for the material, personally. In my early double digit ages, I have also watched a couple episodes of Cartoon Network’s “The Garfield Show” when we had company at my house and I was not the one controlling the TV. Safe to say, with my limited exposure and lack of memory or experience with the comics, “Garfield” was not something I cared about a lot as a kid.
Speaking of not caring, I felt rather indifferent about “The Garfield Movie.” The only catalysts that could have gotten me invested in “The Garfield Movie” are the trailers looking uniquely bad, and the powers that be deciding some time ago that Chris Pratt is the only person who can lead big animated movies now for some reason. As soon I heard Chris Pratt was voicing Garfield, my first thought was the same when I heard he was voicing Super Mario. And that thought was, “Why?”
Now that I have seen “The Garfield Movie” and have now witnessed Chris Pratt’s performance as the title character, my thought was the same when I finally saw “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and heard Pratt voice the title character in that. And that thought was, “Why?” Genuinely, I do not know how Chris Pratt could have worked in this role. The only defense I could possibly come up with is that Garfield, by nature, is a pretty lazy individual. And when I am hearing Chris Pratt talk, he kind of sounds rather mellow and unenthusiastic. That maybe could be what the movie’s going for, but it doesn’t work for me. And maybe this shows Pratt’s range because he also voiced Emmet in “The LEGO Movie,” which, sure, is pretty much the definition of an everyday, ordinary guy. But Pratt sounds enthusiastic enough in his performance there to put a spin on the everyday nature of the character. If anything, Chris Pratt in “The Garfield Movie” is about as interesting as a trip to DMV. He is lifeless, lacking in flair, and sounds as if he is just getting ready for the fat cat of a paycheck. The best way I can sum up Chris Pratt’s performance in “The Garfield Movie” is to say that I do not see a cat. I just see Chris Pratt in a soundbooth. It is the same problem I had with Dwayne Johnson voicing Krypto in “DC League of Super-Pets.” When you get a big name celebrity like that to be the lead voice of your film, sure, maybe it will boost credibility for select audience members. But to me it almost fails to come off as “acting.” I love “The LEGO Movie,” and Chris Pratt is a standout as the voice of Emmet. But “The Garfield Movie” is not a good fit for him. I did not think Chris Pratt could give a less interesting voiceover than “Onward.” Then “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” happened, and so did “The Garfield Movie.” What a world we live in.
That said, the movie’s supporting cast is a bit better. Samuel L. Jackson does an okay job as Vic (center). Hannah Waddingham, even though she could have been written better, does the best she can with Jinx. I thought Nicholas Hoult gave a much better performance as Jon than I anticipated. I like Hoult, but I was rather surprised he put as much passion as he did into the role. But by far the best performance in the movie is Ving Rhames as Otto, a bull who served as a mascot for a farm. Rhames currently has a consistent career in the voiceover game doing Arby’s commercials. But his performance as Otto proves that he not only has the meats, he has the goods. Also to his advantage, he has the best lines in the movie. There is one line, I cannot remember it verbatim, that he uses to mathematically determine how long it would take for Garfield and Vic to cooperate and work as a team. But for what I remember, based on the way it was executed, it delivered one of the bigger laughs I had during the film. And that transitions into another disappointment. I wish this film were funnier. After all, “Garfield” is an iconic comic strip. You’d expect humor out of something like “Garfield.” And sure, there are glimmers of “The Garfield Movie” that deliver a few laughs, but not a ton.
Animation-wise, the movie delivers a fairly wide color spectrum in certain scenes. There are moments, color-wise, that feel surprisingly bland. But I was impressed with the animation of the Italian restaurant we see at the beginning of the movie. Additionally, there are a few shots that tend to stand out and match the film’s mile a minute pacing. But I cannot say anything regarding the animation is revolutionary or changes the game. Although one compliment I would add is that Garfield himself is well designed. For the most part, he looks like he is straight out of the comic strip. They did a good job at bringing him to life. I just wish he were voiced more effectively.
One thing I took from “The Garfield Movie” is the notion that if this is how the title character is in his other material, then I probably do not have a passion for said character. On paper, Garfield may sound relatable, but his relatability is hard to balance for story like the one this movie is delivering. Garfield’s relatability comes from laziness, unwillingness to get outside, flawed dieting choices, things that make us human. Deep down, some of us can put ourselves in Garfield’s shoes, but throughout this film, no matter how much the plot chooses to progress, Garfield himself appears to lack dimension. In fact, going back to Ving Rhames as Otto, I think he had by far a much better journey in this movie than Garfield did. By the time we got to the end of his portion of the story, it delivered a greater sense of satisfaction to yours truly to what I felt as soon as we got the end of Garfield’s time in the film.
On another note, I was surprised to know how much product placement is in this film. Who directed this? Michael Bay?! Where are the explosions?! Where’s the corny, outdated dialogue? Come on, guys! What are you doing?! I’m guessing this what one of the “Transformers” movies changes into when it needs to shake things up. When it comes to animated movies, “The Garfield Movie” is not quite as bad as “The Emoji Movie” in terms of product placement, but there are obvious winks to FedEx, Popchips, and multiple instances of Olive Garden to the point where I thought I was watching a “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie instead of “The Garfield Movie.”
In the end, “The Garfield Movie” is predictable, disposable, and unmemorable. I would almost argue the movie is too chaotic. Everything gets into gear really quickly to the point where I never found myself fully invested with what was happening. The best phrase I can use to describe this movie is “run of the mill.” I have most definitely seen better, but it is not horrible. It is not the worst thing I ever seen. In fact, with “Madame Web” having released earlier this year, “The Garfield Movie” is not even the worst Columbia Pictures movie we got this year. But the first act at times is a chore to get through. Garfield is rather unadmirable as a character. The story, even with its more complex elements, is somewhat predictable. The ending almost overstays its welcome. And Chris Pratt is incredibly miscast as the titular role. I am going to give “The Garfield Movie” a 4/10.
“The Garfield Movie” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “I Saw the TV Glow.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” “Young Woman and the Sea,” and “Inside Out 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 “The Garfield Movie?” What did you think about it? Also, Garfield clearly loves lasagna to such an insatiable degree. On that note, I must ask, what food would you say is your weakness? I have a number that come to mind, but pizza’s gotta be up there. I literally took a two hour drive from my house a month ago and stayed overnight in a hotel just to try a pizza place I have been eyeing for some time. With that said, let me know down your hunger-inducing weaknesses down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Civil War” is directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and stars Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man, Wimbledon), Wagner Moura (Elite Squad, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Pacific Rim: Uprising), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Dune, Lady Bird), Sonoya Mizuno (House of the Dragon, Devs), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder). This film is set in a dystopian future United States and centers around a group of people trying to make it to Washington, DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.
As I have said on this blog before, some of my favorite directors working today include Christopher Nolan, Damien Chazelle, and Quentin Tarantino. Those are usually the big three that come to mind. Although one director I happen to admire somewhere down that list is Alex Garland. I love his directorial debut, “Ex Machina.” A film that has become increasingly relevant and captivating with age. Looking back at his sophomore directorial effort, “Annihilation,” I think that film is a slight step down. But there is a lot that works in that film. Visually, it is uniquely stunning. Natalie Portman does a great job in the lead role. As an experience, I found parts of the film trippy, intriguing, and even a little terrifying. Looking back, it also has one of the better musical scores of the past decade. As for Alex Garland’s next movie, “Men,” I cannot say I hated it… In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, it is a thumbs up. The actors do a good job. The color palette and overall aesthetic pops. But it felt like there was something missing from that film. It lacked an oomph of sorts. Naturally, I was curious about “Civil War.” Even with that in mind, I was not fully sure where to set my expectations. I thought this movie could go one way or another. It was either gonna stand out in such a positive way or in such a negative way. Turns out, it does both.
“Civil War” is not a movie I am going to recommend for everyone. If you are looking to have a good time, then maybe go see something else. I am not saying that “Civil War” is a terrible movie. It is far from being bad. But if anything, it reminds me of when I watched say “12 Years a Slave,” which to a certain degree, is not the happiest watch. The two movies are completely different in terms of plot and execution, but they deliver similar feelings of uneasiness. This movie made me feel genuinely uncomfortable. There are scenes in this film where I am tittering in my seat because the context of said scene is frankly disturbing to say the least. And honestly, and I mean this as a compliment in regards to “Civil War,” some of those scenes feel real. Or if not real, genuine enough to the point where I believe it could happen. This is especially true for one scene that has caught my attention since first watching the trailer.
If you saw the marketing for “Civil War,” you have probably seen Jesse Plemons on screen. He plays an ultranationalist and he owns the role to the tenth degree. I am sure Plemons is the nicest of guys in real life, but I would never want to come across this character in my travels. His portrayal of this character, simply known as “Soldier,” is delivered with subtlety, but even his calm mannerisms pack a punch. Whenever he is on screen, I am simply waiting to hear a pin drop, or anything else that would get me to jump out of my chair. I know I just saw “Abigail,” which by definition, is a horror movie prominently featuring a vampire. But I have to be real, compared to Abigail, Plemons’s character is nightmare fuel.
The strongest point for “Civil War” is how easy it is for me to feel like I’m in the middle of the action. I saw this movie in IMAX, and of the IMAX experiences I had, this is one of the more interesting ones. Because when I go to IMAX, I go for the thrills, the chills, and the excitement that, like the opening countdown suggests, CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGES and EARTH-SHATTERING SOUND can bring. This movie was almost too loud at times, but I also think that from Garland’s point of view, that was on purpose. The gunfire, explosions, and all the other ruckus of war were dialed up to an 11 to the point where I felt like I was there. Part of me assumed I was actually in the moment with Kirsten Dunst or whoever else was on screen at the time.
Kirsten Dunst plays Lee (left rear), a photojournalist. When it comes to defining a main character for “Civil War,” it seems as if there are limited solid options on the table. This movie is a controversy generator, but I will note that when it comes to selecting a main character, a photojournalist like Lee is a smart choice. Lee is active enough to the point where she is technically involved in the war, but her job basically keeps her from picking a side. Dunst is well cast in the role and delivers quite a performance. She does a good job.
The film may be called “Civil War,” but at its core, you could argue that this film is essentially a road trip movie. It is about a group of characters trying to get from point A to point B with the intentions of running into as few obstacles as possible. Along for the ride is Wagner Moura as Joel (right front), a Reuters journalist. Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (left front), a New York Times journalist and Lee’s mentor, and Cailee Spaeny as Jessie Cullen (right rear), an aspiring photographer. All of these actors fit into their roles nicely and have good chemistry. Casting-wise, this movie hit the jackpot.
As I said earlier, “Civil War” is a movie that stands out to me in both a positive and negative way. In addition to the balance between the thrills and all around discomfort this movie brings to the table, this notion also stands true for its technical aspects. I have already talked about how the sound does its job while also coming off as one of the movie’s drawbacks. But much like the sound, the film editing has my brain driving itself in circles.
There are points in this movie that had me thinking to myself that the editing is not just great, it is a contender to win an Oscar next year. In fact, the editing in this film, in addition to being perfectly paced, spectacularly highlights the power of photojournalism. This is something that is personal to me as someone who has spent the past year working in news, but also as someone who has taken journalism classes in college. But if I have one thing to say about the final edit, it is that there are a couple of music choices that are about out of left field. I think the film’s music, for the most part, works. But there are one or two instances where I found myself perplexed.
As for the film’s reflectiveness of our society, obviously there are moments that feel genuine enough that remind me of the world we live in today. But as for the idea that California and Texas could unite in war anytime soon, I found that to be a bit of a fantasy. At the same time though, I do not entirely care that they are in this war together. If this film felt more genuine than it is, chances are it would generate more controversy than it already unleashing amongst its audiences. I went to see a movie with a friend of mine in March. One of the trailers was for “Civil War.” Based on what she saw, she thought this movie should never have happened. Based on her words, I gathered she thought a movie like this could potentially be dangerous. Personally, I can see where she is coming from. This is why, again, if you are looking for are a looking for an escape, maybe this is not the movie for you. As for me, I think “Civil War” is one of the better films of the year. It is not quite on the level of say “Dune Part Two,” but much like that recent science fiction masterpiece, “Civil War” is technically powerful and delivers a one of a kind experience.
In the end, “Civil War” is not going to be a film I will end up watching on a Friday night anytime soon, but I am glad I checked it out. It is a film that is huge in scope, massive in world-building, but in terms of the overall premise, it is as simple as can be. The story is nothing more than just journeying from point A to B and making sure nobody dies along the way. The cast is well-rounded and marvelously put together. Jesse Plemons, despite not having an official credit, practically steals the show. Nick Offerman also does a good job as the President. I thought he fit the role perfectly. The film is not flawless. In fact, even the aspects of the movie that lean more positive have some glaring negatives attached. When it comes to ranking the Alex Garland movies, this is not as enthralling as “Ex Machina” or as exciting as “Annihilation,” but it is certainly more memorable than “Men.” I am going to give “Civil War” a 7/10.
“Civil War” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! While a lot of people ended up seeing “Civil War” when it came out, my next review on the other hand is for a film that practically no one bothered to watch. That my friends, is “Boy Kills World,” which only made a few million dollars at the box office. I am proud to be one of the lucky individuals that had the pleasure of watching this experience of a flick. I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it with you all. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Civil War?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Alex Garland movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 