Adventure

The Garfield Movie (2024): A Case of the Mondays

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2024): Alex Garland’s Most Dramatically Immersive Film Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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!

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024): Stomp Away from This One…

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is directed by Adam Wingard (The Guest, Blair Witch) and stars Rebecca Hall (The Prestige, The Town), Brian Tyree Henry (Atlanta, Bullet Train), Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey, The Guest), Kaylee Hottle, Alex Ferns (Andor, Chernobyl), and Fala Chen (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, The Undoing). This is the fifth entry to the MonsterVerse franchise as the two titular titans find themselves in battle once again. Meanwhile, a set of humans venture to Skull Island and unravel its mysteries.

Before we begin this review, I must shoutout my favorite film of 2023, “Godzilla Minus One.” I did not think the film was going to be bad, but I was not prepared for just how good that flick was going to be. Once the picture was over, I had to ask myself whether what I just watched was real. I did not think I was watching a “Godzilla” movie and instead, something better. But that’s probably an indicator of my limited experience with the franchise. Because most of it was through the ongoing MonsterVerse, which of course also has King Kong. Truthfully, the MonsterVerse does not have the best batting average when it comes to quality. “Godzilla” is barely passable. “Kong: Skull Island” had some fun moments. “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is one of the biggest disappointments I have ever seen. “Godzilla vs. Kong” was admittedly one of the most fun experiences I had at the movies the year it came out. That said, the story and characters needed some work. Of the four previous movies, I had experiences with three of them that lean in a more positive direction, but I cannot say any of them are iconic.

I was not really looking forward to this installment. This would come as a bit of a surprise given how much I enjoyed the last movie. But the trailers did not win me over. It seemed to come with the same problems with the last film despite how much I enjoyed it. At the same time, there was no real oomph for the film. I mean, Godzilla’s pink now. Sure…

Additionally, like some other people, I continue to question how he can run so fast. I am genuinely bewildered as to how this speed is possible for someone like Godzilla.

But low expectations do not necessarily guarantee a bad movie. In fact, the lower my expectations, the greater the potential for a pleasant surprise, which is one of the greatest feelings I can have as a moviegoer. Unfortunately, there is no surprise here with “Godzilla x Kong.” It is not great. Thankfully, it is not as bad as “Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” which was another level of boring. But this movie feels like a classic case of looks over personality. The positives in this movie mainly come down to the dazzling visual effects, occasionally cool action sequences, and the overall neat design of Skull Island. Action-wise, the biggest problem I have is when things start to go down, I wish I felt more engaged with the stakes and the story. During “Godzilla vs. Kong,” I watched the action sequences and wondered where it would end up taking the characters involved. In “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” the conflict and stakes did not feel as present as the last film. I felt like I was watching monsters fighting as opposed to immersing myself in the world and asking what is going to come of said fights. However, there are a couple instances in the choreography that I was genuinely not expecting. I did not laugh during this movie as much as I would believe it wanted me to, but I almost died during one particular sequence where Kong uses someone else as a weapon. I was cackling like an idiot. Speaking of which, when it comes to the script, I am sure the people who wrote this movie are not idiots, but I certainly felt like an idiot while hearing some of the dialogue.

Every other line uttered by the humans on Skull Island feels like something out of a tutorial or straight up exposition dump. I understand that this is a fantasy world and it is something we have not seen, but the dialogue out of these characters feels like it is bridging into wonderland. I will say though, one of the reasons why I think “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is superior to “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is because this new movie tends to at least embrace the fun of its absurd moments, even if I think they are too far-fetched, whereas “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” feels serious despite having an occasional failed attempt to throw in a funny line here and there. That said, both movies have the same problem. The humans.

Some of the humans from “Godzilla vs. Kong” make a return here. You’ve got Brian Tyree Henry back as Bernie Hayes (right). And he is just about as interesting as he was in 2021. That is if you can call a guy whose primary personality trait is “wacko podcaster” interesting.

I think the best human character of the entire cast is also one of the returning roles, specifically, Kaylee Hottle as Jia. I think her connection to Kong, which was established in the previous installment, makes for one of the film’s better elements of the story. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast feels like they are just there. There is nothing particularly striking about them.

Despite the throwaway human characters and lackluster dialogue, this movie, oddly enough, tends to kill it when it comes to visual storytelling at times. Specifically, when it comes to the monsters. Now, the monsters do not speak English. The closest many of these beasts come to talking is roaring. But there are select moments, most notably when it comes to characters like Kong and Skar King, the latter of whom is an effective villain. When I was watching select scenes with these characters, part of me wished I could spend more time with them as opposed to the humans who often felt as if they were interfering with the film’s quality. In fact, for a movie with “Godzilla” being the first word in the title, I am kind of surprised we did not get more screentime with “Godzilla” this time around. That said, this ultimately came off as Kong’s story more than anyone else. The movie is mostly set in his world, and shows off everything it has to offer, both good and bad. Therefore, when it comes to providing a Kong-centric journey, the movie does its job. Yes, Godzilla is there. But this is more of a “Kong” movie than a “Godzilla” movie. I mean, I get why he has more screentime. When you have all these human characters, you probably want a more humanized monster at the center. Of the two titular titans, Kong is the clear winner.

If I had anything else to add, I would say I am surprised humanity has not tried harder to turn against these monsters after seeing all the destruction they do to their world. The sound design in this film is to no surprise, boisterously cool. Also, out of all the things I expected to see in this movie, monster dentistry was not one of them. Remember how I said the movie sometimes embraces its silly nature? There is literally a whole scene dedicated to giving Kong a new tooth. I mean… I have seen stranger things. But even in this world, I admittedly almost have trouble buying this concept as much as it tries to blend itself into the script.

In the end, maybe it is because I feel spoiled after watching the Shakespearean masterpiece that is “Godzilla Minus One,” I feel like “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is a ginormous waste of time. On the technical side, the film comes supersized with several positives from the way it is shot to the color grading to the sound to overall scale of everything on screen. Skull Island feels massive and inviting from scene one. It is almost like its own character. But everything surrounding it feels second tier. Every other time a human said something, I wanted to roll my eyes. Their involvement in the story did not do much for me. Honestly, when it comes to Godzilla’s presence in the film, I kind of felt underwhelmed. The moments he was on screen were okay, I just wish he were there a bit longer. I was not as engaged in this story as I wanted to be despite a few decent action scenes. I am not going to pretend 2021’s “Godzilla vs. Kong” had the best story either. But not only did it have better action, but as far as overall progression and pacing goes, I prefer that movie over this one. I am going to give “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” a 4/10.

“Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming soon! My next review is going to be for Dev Patel’s new film, “Monkey Man.” Stay tuned! Also, look out for my thoughts on “Abigail,” “Civil War,” “Boy Kills World,” “Challengers,” and “The Fall Guy.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite entry in the current MonsterVerse? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024): We Came, We Saw, But the Movie Only Barely Exceeded Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ghostbsuters: Frozen Empire” is directed by Gil Kenan (Monster House, Poltergeist) and this film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ant-Man), Carrie Coon (The Leftovers, Fargo), Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, It), Mckenna Grace (The Young and the Restless, Gifted), Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, The Big Sick), Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, A.P. Bio), Ernie Hudson (The Basketball Diaries, Quantum Leap), and Annie Potts (Toy Story, Young Sheldon). This movie traces back to the franchise’s origin point, New York City, and centers around the Ghostbusters’ quest to uncover the connections to an ancient artifact and to keep civilization from being trapped under ice.

Here is a fun fact about Scene Before, “Ghostbusters” literally got this blog started. I am serious. Because I started this blog in 2016 as part of a high school project. One of the big talking points at the time was the trailer for the “Ghostbusters” reboot, which I did not enjoy. Then months later, one of the big talking points was the movie connected to that trailer, which I did not enjoy. Like, really did not enjoy. In fact, when I did my worst films of the 2010s list, that was #1, and I stand by it. Could that movie have worked? Of course it could have! After seeing “The LEGO Movie,” I am under the impression any movie can work. But 2016’s “Ghostbusters” was not funny. The CGI was off-putting. And it is a waste of a lot of people’s talent. When I look back at the film, part of me hates talking about it. Because if I simply say I did not like the movie, there is probably someone out there pointing their finger at me and telling me that I hate women. I am all for women empowerment. Look at how epic “Wonder Woman” was the following year. I just wish this movie were handled better.

When “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was announced, I was quite excited. I thought it was a little soon for a new “Ghostbusters” outing, but the trailers seemed to successfully balance nostalgia with an immersive, adventurous vibe. It was also nice to see the franchise outside of New York City for once. Unfortunately, I did not get to review the movie due to time constraints. But if you want my quick thoughts, I had a ball with it. I liked the new characters. Paul Rudd was great in his role. The sound design was quite good. And the action sequences were fun. The movie was a delight. The film by no means rewrote what it meant to be a box office success, but it was enough of a hit to justify another movie, in this case “Frozen Empire.”

Just to give a quick ranking of the “Ghostbusters” movies before this one came out, I would have to say the first one is easily the best. “Afterlife” comes in second. “Ghostbusters II” takes third place for me. And again, it pains me just mentioning it, but I have to be honest, my least favorite film of the franchise is the disconnected “Ghostbusters” 2016. So where does “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” rank amongst these movies?

Honestly, smack dab in the middle.

In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an easy thumbs up. There is plenty to like about this sequel. But there is not a lot to love. Does the movie have decent nostalgia? Sure. Does the movie have a good concept? Sure. Is the humor on point? Sure, but it is not as strong as the original movie. Does it handle the newer characters well? Some better than others. This is the one thing about this movie, there are a lot of positives, but when I say positives, I do so knowing that these positives may not be worthy enough for me to go back and watch the movie a second time in the next few months.

Sorry to spoil a movie that is a couple years old, but in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” the four original “Ghostbusters” made an appearance towards the end of the film. And yes, I said four. They found a way to inject the late Harold Ramis into the project. In this installment, three of those four are back, and around for a bit longer. Ernie Hudson and Dan Aykroyd have more notable impacts on the story, but Bill Murray manages to squeeze himself in at some point.

One thing I have noticed about the “Ghostbusters” franchise, at least in the movies, is that all of the ghosts are not on the busters’ side. Obviously, if your crew is about killing ghosts, of course, you are going to not play nice with them. But this movie introduces a ghost character who I thought served as a nice antithesis to that idea to some degree. Specifically, Melody played by Emily Alan Lind. Throughout the film we see young Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) develop a connection with her that drives the plot forward significantly. The two have good chemistry and I like seeing them onscreen together. Some elements as to how their bond starts may come off as far-fetched or convenient, but at the same time, it does make sense in a franchise where the Statue of Liberty basically goes “Night at the Museum” during the climax of “Ghostbusters II.”

Although that subplot does not even bring forth the most convenient, perhaps out of left field part of the movie. Because that honor, if you can call it that, goes to something we see out of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, Nadeem Razmaadi (left center). As much as I enjoyed the climax of this movie, if there is one thing I did not like about it, there is a moment where we see Nadeem do something that had me going “Why?” The moment did not feel authentic. Again, I understand, it is “Ghostbusters.” The franchise has jumped the shark before. But I feel the franchise is at its best when there is a balance between reality and fantasy. This leans too far into the fantasy route for me.

This is not to suggest you have to like one movie over the other, but I have a feeling that if you like the 1980s “Ghostbusters” fare, you might feel more comfortable watching this movie at times compared to “Afterlife.” It’s back in New York City, you have more time with the original cast, and it has a much larger scale and feel. If you like those things, you should, on paper, have an okay time with this movie. But the reality is, much like what I said last week about “Kung Fu Panda 4,” if I were to introduce this franchise to someone, I would just start with the original. This follow-up is entertaining, but it does not change the game. It is not going to be remembered as one of the greats. Maybe I will catch it again on cable one day. “Ghostbusters” seems to have a large presence there anyway. But we shall see. It could be better. But for my money, I had fun with it.

In the end, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an enjoyable time, but compared to a couple other installments in this franchise, it is not as good. When it comes to pure spectacle, this movie does not fail. There is an action scene in the first act that had me hooked and excited for whatever was going to come next. Was I intrigued by everything that came after? You can say that. But I am not going to pretend I will run down the street screaming my highest recommendations for this film. That said, if you decide to watch it, you might enjoy it. You never know. I am going to give “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” a 6/10.

“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming up in the pipeline including “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” “Monkey Man,” “Abigail,” and “Civil War.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Ghostbusters” movie? And despite everything I said earlier, I welcome any and all opinions about the 2016 reboot. If you like it, more power to you. But for me, the original is the best one. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…Kind of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dune Part Two (2024): Long Live Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Migration” is directed by Benjamin Renner (Ernest & Clementine, The Big Bad Fox and Other Tales) and co-directed Guylo Homsy (Despicable Me, The Lorax). This movie stars Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, Eternals), Elizabeth Banks (Press Your Luck, The LEGO Movie), Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Awkwafina (Renfield, Raya and the Last Dragon), and Danny DeVito (My Cousin Vinny, Jumanji: The Next Level). The film is about a family of ducks who leave their habitat with the intention of migrating south, much to the resistance of their overprotective, closed-minded father.

Of the major animation studios out there today, the one that interests me the least is Illumination. “Despicable Me” never struck me as a franchise I tended to enjoy. “The Secret Life of Pets” has one average movie followed by a painfully awful sequel. “Sing” is the one notable saving grace the studio has delivered over the years. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is about as barely passable as movies can get. Granted, it is major step up from the 1993 live action adaptation of the iconic video game franchise, but when it comes to Illumination’s legacy, I have never found myself attached to it. Illumination is no Pixar, which has banger after banger after banger. Well, until they released “Elemental” this year which was one of the most disappointing animated features I have seen in my entire life. That said, this has been a great year for animation. For those who do not know, little preview behind the scenes at Scene Before, I am currently working on my top 10 best movies of the year, and I have not reviewed or seen everything I wanted to see yet, but a good portion of the titles contending for that list are animated.

I have good news and bad news. Let’s start with the bad news first, “Migration” is not going to join the top 10 best movies of the year for me. The good news is, “Migration” is nevertheless a decent movie. I was quite surprised with this film. I honestly thought the movie would not only be bad, but it would completely suck on every level. The marketing has been underwhelming, and ever since it started, I have not had the best impression of it. I remember when they dropped the first teaser back in the spring and half the trailer was just Illumination patting themselves on the back for all the movies they created so far. Now, I am a bit of a hypocrite because “The Boy and the Heron” just came out, which had a trailer close to the film’s release looking back at many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films. But one, I like most of those movies. And two, given the long time it took to make Miyazaki’s latest film a reality, the trailer in that campaign felt somewhat earned.

But you know what? I was pleasantly surprised. I did not pay to see this film, I ended up attending an early screening less than a week before the film came out and I had some laughs and smiles. The film does not reinvent the wheel and is far from the best animated film released this year. If anything, it is somewhat predictable and cliché, but as I said before on this blog, a movie can be predictable and done well. “Godzilla Minus One” has some predictable moments, but as long as they make sense or feel earned, I can forgive them for being there.

All around, the voice acting is decent. Not the best of the year, but when it comes to Illumination, it is collectively better than what we got in “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” Jack Black as Bowser is the glaring exception. Kumail Nanjiani does a good job as Mack (right center), the lead duck who happens to be stuck in his ways. Elizabeth Banks as Pam (right) is a standout amongst the cast. Banks traditionally has a lively, often upbeat voice that lends itself to roles like this one. As husband and wife, I bought into the duo immediately. Their respective voice actors were well paired.

One voice actor I was shockingly entranced by was Awkwafina. I have not seen everything Awkwafina was in throughout the past few years, but she has built a reputation of being particularly unlikable amongst some people. I never found her that way, but in the past few roles, she seems to be typecast and relying on previous schtick that is not quite old yet, but is getting there. That is why I am pleased to say that Awkwafina, despite my reservations from the trailer, is a fun standout in this film as Chump the pigeon. Her lines landed perfectly within the context of the film. She voiced the character well. And I felt that almost every scene she was in enhanced the picture in the long run. When it comes to Awkwafina, this is obviously nowhere near as memorable of a portrayal as the one she gave to Billi Wang in “The Farewell.” I will also say she is better in films like “Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” but I always like a good surprise.

And that is kind of what this movie is. I watched the trailer months back and absolutely hated it. Then I watched the movie a couple weeks ago and ended up liking it. I am not going to pretend this is Illumination’s best work. “Sing” is a step up from this, though this might be a tad better than “Sing 2.” But like those movies, “Migration” has its flaws.

The most prominent flaw for me, and this may strictly be based on personal preferences, I did not like how the movie portrayed its antagonist. The antagonist in this case is a restaurant chef. It kind of reminded me of another Illumination title, “The Secret Life of Pets 2,” where the villain basically overembellishes everything. I understand this is an animation, but there is a certain threshold that this movie crosses with the antagonist at certain points that I was not able to buy. I do not want to dive too deep into spoilers, but there are select moments where I saw the antagonist do certain things or act in certain ways that did not feel authentic.

However, like other Illumination titles, “Migration” has a nice polish in its animation. The color palette is pleasing to the eye. The film looks good. Much like the studio’s previous effort, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” the animation is one of the top tier qualities of the entire film. But also like “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “Migration” tends to suffer sometimes from its screenplay. In fairness, the screenplay makes sense and everything lines up. But it is full of cliches. Sometimes it feels safe and familiar. There are some creative decisions here and there, and there is one scene involving herons in the first act that was quite good. It was tense and had some laughs. But I am not going to remember this movie as one of the best of the year because it does very little to lean away from predictability. I think “Migration” is a good family movie. And if you are looking for something to do with the kiddos for the rest of their winter break, this makes for a fine time at the cinema.

In the end, “Migration” is one of the biggest surprises of the year for me. I think it is probably my second favorite title from Illumination. But then again, that is not saying much, because I have not seen every single film from them (I do not give a crap about “Despicable Me”) and when it comes to the films I have seen, their collective average when combining my final scores is not that great. In fact, the film is quite flawed at times. It is utterly nonsensical in terms of its overall story and how some scenes play out. Again, I know this is animated, sometimes there is a ceiling the film needs to avoid cracking. But the film has a couple of chuckle-worthy moments, likable characters, and it is nice to look at. There is not much more to write home about, and there are significantly better animated movies I have seen this year. I could name a bunch of them. but this film was a pleasant surprise. I am going to give “Migration” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “Poor Things!” Also coming in January, it is that time yet again! I will be revealing my best and worst movies of 2023! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Migration?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated movie of 2023? Right now it is kind of a tossup for me between “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” and “The First Slam Dunk.” Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Boy and the Heron (2023): Hayao Miyazaki’s Imagination Runs Wild in His First Feature in a Decade

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Boy and the Heron” is directed by Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle) and stars Soma Santoki (Koko wa Ima kara Rinri Desu, Idatan: Tokyo Olympics Story) Masaki Suda (The Great War of Archimedes, Death Note: Light Up the New World) Aimyon, Yoshino Kimura (Boku no yabai tsuma, Confessions) Shōhei Hino (My Happy Marriage, Emperor) Ko Shibasaki (47 Ronin, Dororo), and Takuya Kimura (Space Battleship Yamato, Howl’s Moving Castle). This semi-autobiographical fantasy film is about a young boy who longs to see his mother one more time. After discovering an abandoned tower, the young boy ventures into a world shared by the living and dead.

My earliest memory of watching a full piece of anime from start to finish goes back as early as 2011. I was attending summer school and we ended up watching a movie that I would long forget the name of, only to realize years later that movie would end up being “Howl’s Moving Castle.” I have since rewatched the film and continue to think it is really good, but it goes to show how much of an impact Miyazaki has had on the craft. He is a well known individual in this industry, even across the world. And yes, I heard of “DragonBall” like a lot of other kids growing up probably did. But even today I never got around to it. That said, when it comes to my limited knowledge of anime, Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli have a notable presence in my mind. I have seen most of the Studio Ghibli features, many of which include Miyazaki’s work. The recently mentioned “Howl’s Moving Castle” is an imaginative adventure. “Spirited Away” is an otherworldly ride. “My Neighbor Totoro” is a cute little tale. “Ponyo” is a simple, but incredibly well done story. “The Wind Rises” is an emotionally charged piece of animation. Miyazaki is not my favorite filmmaker, but having seen most of his work, he has a remarkable batting average that puts him up there with the greats.

When it comes to the 2023 roster of films, I would often get excited for “Oppenheimer” and sometimes refer to it as “the next Christopher Nolan movie” to show my fanaticism for the director. I acted similarly when it came to “The Boy and the Heron.” Despite knowing the title of the movie, I would often talk about my anticipation for the film and not even use the title, I would just call it “the new Hayao Miyazaki movie.” That is how excited I was to see one of his films come to life. There is also a novelty that comes with a film like this because it is the director’s first in a decade. But with an extended break, has Miyazaki lost his touch? Absolutely not. If anything, this movie goes to show how good of a filmmaker he is. Watching this film made me realize Miyazaki may be one of the most imaginative minds alive right now.

“The Boy and the Heron” is a layered, beautifully animated, and charming time. All the characters are likable, the journey itself is quite fun, and it successfully does what I ask many movies to do. Have me escape from my own reality. The movie also has its fair share of funny moments, which I was delighted to see.

When it comes to the main character of Mahito, I could not help but root for him once we are first introduced to him. Now I cannot say I followed a similar path to him as his primary motivation is to see his late mother one more time. But I very much liked the character conceptually. I think his primary motivation that we see throughout the film made for quite his journey all the more compelling.

Sadly though, I think the big problem with this film is that there happens to be little impact from most of these characters once I left the auditorium. On the surface, I liked everyone, but some characters either felt surface level, or their substance or backstory could not match their stunning design. Yes, I enjoyed Miyazaki’s other films because of how spellbound I became upon seeing the animation. But I also enjoyed “Kiki’s Delivery Service” because the titular character had my attention the entire time. While not my favorite of his movies, part of why I liked “My Neighbor Totoro” is because of the chemistry between Satsuki and Mei, the two young sisters. I cannot really name too many character relationships in “The Boy and the Heron” that had me in as much of a trance as those. But even with these thoughts in mind, “The Boy and the Heron” is one of 2023’s best film experiences. Everytime I watch a Hayao Miyazaki movie, it is like going on vacation to somewhere fantastical. Everything feels nice and serene, even if there are adventures along the way. This film is no exception. The locations are beautiful, the effects are eye-popping, the story has quite a solid progression to keep me hooked, and of course like many other stories from Miyazaki, it is wildly imaginative.

I say Miyazaki’s imagination is as vivid as the sun. One small part of that has to do with how he handles a particular set of characters in the movie. Specifically the parakeets. First off, these parakeets, while mostly interchangeable to a degree, are fantastically drawn. They’re all colorful and match the palette of the film at hand. Not to mention, these parakeets are the definition of cute but not cuddly. These creatures are kind of like the Ewoks from “Return of the Jedi,” who may look innocent, but if you ran into a couple, chances are they will proudly murder you. I am not going to pretend I own any Studio Ghibli merchandise, but if I saw one of these parakeets in my travels, maybe I’ll pick one up. I don’t know. In terms of world-building and establishing the environment, the film does a great job with that. In fact, one of the minor flaws with this movie is that it does such a good job at building its world to the point where I am more focused on the background as opposed to the characters. And maybe that is part of why I have my previously mentioned character complaints. This is probably where a second viewing would come in handy. But of course, one would be warranted if I like the film enough the first time around. Thankfully, my initial watch of this film provided for a glorious experience.

If I have any real flaws with the movie, portions of the story were inferior to others. I think the film takes a bit to get going. There are a fair share of decent moments when the movie begins, but I think everything from the second to third act had more of my attention compared to select moments in the first act. This is not me ragging on the movie, this is just me stating my personal preferences. I like everything in it. But certain things appealed to me just a bit more.

My other big highlight of the movie is that it has one of the better musical scores I have heard this year. And I should not be surprised because not only does Miyazaki make a comeback here, but his longtime composer, Joe Hisaishi also returns here and he fires on all cylinders. Maybe it is recency bias talking, this is one of the better scores I have heard from him. I think when it comes to my favorite work of his, I think “Kiki’s Delivery Service,” “Howl’s Moving Castle,” and now I am probably going to put this up there. There is one particular theme from the film that is still stuck in my head, and it very much matches the sense of adventure this film provides.

In the end, “The Boy and the Heron” comes with minor flaws, but even with them in mind, there are a gargantuan number of positives that make me reflect on this movie being one of my favorites of the year. 2023 has been an excellent year for cinema. Animation especially. From Japan alone we had “Suzume,” which was marvelous. And we had “The First Slam Dunk,” which turned out to be one of this year’s most overwhelming and delightful surprises. Now we have yet another winner from that market and it comes from the man whose mark on this industry is almost unmatched. I like a fair number of his movies, and Studio Ghibli is a remarkable company. Is this Miyazaki’s best movie? No. But it is far from my least favorite. And even when I say that, I do so knowing that I have not seen a bad film from him yet. If anything, the film is worth seeing. I already saw it in Japanese, and you bet I have plans to one day check out the English dub. I am going to give “The Boy and the Heron” an 8/10.

“The Boy and the Heron” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review and want to see more, good news, there are more coming! My next review is going to be for “Dream Scenario,” starring Nicolas Cage. I just had the chance to see this movie a couple weeks back and I cannot wait to share my thoughts. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Maestro,” “Wonka,” “Migration,” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Boy and the Heron?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Hayao Miyazaki movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Godzilla Minus One (2023): A Jaw-Dropping, Planet-Shaking, Monster-Sized Masterpiece

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Godzilla Minus One” is written and directed by Takashi Yamazaki (The Great War of Archimedes, Lupin III: The First) and stars Ryunosuke Kamiki (Summer Wars, Your Name) Minami Hamabe (Let Me Eat Your Pancreas, The Great War of Archimedes), Yuki Yamada (Strobe Edge, Tokyo Revengers), Munetaka Aoki (Rurouni Kenshin, The Roundup: No Way Out), Hidetaka Yoshioka (Rhapsody in August, Always: Sunset on Third Street), Sakura Ando (Shoplifters, Love Exposure), and Kuranosuke Sasaki (Hancho, Samurai Hustle). This film is set in postwar Japan when a new crisis emerges in the form of the giant monster, Godzilla.

Before going to see this movie, I found myself to be an appreciator of “Godzilla.” That said, my experience with the character has been mostly limited to the MonsterVerse movies. While there are some cool fights and dazzling displays of VFX from one movie to the next, there is a consistency bogging these movies down. Uninteresting human characters. It’s not that uncommon for movies of this kind to come out in this age and have that problem. As much as I liked the action in say “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” I would not be disappointed if I ever ended up forgetting about Mark Wahlberg’s character. The recent “Jurassic World” movies all have characters that may promise star power, but fall short on fleshing themselves out. I enjoy a good movie where people are running away from titans, but if you are going to have humans at the center of the film, you might as use them to their fullest potential. I should be able to give a crap as to whether the human characters are hurt, or heck, dead, in the next moment or two.

I saw the trailer for “Godzilla Minus One” a couple times in theaters, but I am not going to pretend it was the movie I was looking forward to the most this season. My recent encounters with the so-called king of the monsters have kept my expectations from rising to the beast’s magnificent height. But I saw the movie anyway. It had great reviews, a lot of acclaim, and plenty of chatter in my virtual circles. So I saw the movie.

I have three words for you. Oh my god.

Actually, you know what? Add a “zilla” to the end of that.

This might be the best movie of the year.

Just when I thought 2023 could not get any better when it comes to this year’s roster of movies, this movie stomps forward in the form of a gigantic surprise. And with my limited “Godzilla” experience, I can say this movie gets right what I usually see the other movies with him get right as well. First off, the effects look really good. Some of the best I have seen in recent memory. Any of scenes involving the monster’s power, intense action, and human despair all stand out. And I want to continue on with this last aspect for just a moment.

Of course, when you put Godzilla and terrified humans together, that should result in something intriguing on the surface. But in this film, not only does the basic idea of a collection of people fleeing from Godzilla keep my attention, but the film gets something right that the other films did not. Making me care about specific people in this situation.

Everyone in this film’s cast does a fantastic job in their individual roles. Additionally, I bought into and rooted for all the characters. They might be some of the best I have seen this year. “Godzilla Minus One” centers around a kamikaze pilot who fled from his duty. This plays heavily into some of the movie’s lessons and themes about war, survival, and how we neglect danger. If you look back at the original “Godzilla,” part of why that film continues to stay relevant today is because of its allegorical ties to nuclear war. The movie explicitly suggests that if nuclear war continues, an event akin to Godzilla may be imminent. “Godzilla Minus One” not only utilizes that idea once again in a different manner, but does so while creating a more attractive roster of characters. And I have nothing against the characters in the 1954 “Godzilla,” but these people resonated with me more.

The best side by side comparison I can use when it comes to describing “Godzilla Minus One” is “Star Wars.” As in, the 1977 original. Not only is this film exhilarating and exciting, packed with great characters, and shines as one of the year’s best-looking pictures, but much like Luke Skywalker, I found myself fully invested in the journey of this film’s protagonist, Kōichi Shikishima. Both of these mentioned characters have their major differences in personality and life experiences. But they progress through their own movies realizing similar arcs and journeys that result in giant impacts. There is a particular event that happens in this movie involving the main character and someone else that becomes a love interest that had me in such a state of shock and aghast that no other film experience this year has come even close to providing. Even with their personal flaws established from the film’s start, I got the sense that just about every human character somewhere around the film’s center is a genuinely good person. When that “particular event” goes down, it made me root for the main character even more, and it made me all the more attached and obsessed with his love interest. This character may be one of the most kindhearted, patient, caring souls on the face of the earth.

When we first see the love interest character, specifically Noriko Ōishi, we find out she rescued an orphan baby and now she is raising said child on her own. I have nothing but respect for this woman. She is in every sense of the word, a saint. I am 24 years old, if you were to ask me if I wanted to have a kid at this point in my life, my answer would probably be a “no.” I am still young and I cannot trust myself to raise one properly. But Noriko is honestly one of the most inspiring characters I have ever seen in the history of film. She is living through postwar times trying to survive all the while caring for an individual she probably never asked for in the first place. And she is not just phoning it in, she is a phenomenal motherly figure.

What separates this film from the other “Godzilla” movies I have seen is that it treats its titular titan exactly how he is often described, a fearsome monster. This is not to say he was never once at least slightly intimidating in the other titles I have seen, but you could almost make an argument that “Godzilla Minus One” is more of a horror flick than something along the lines of action and adventure. And part of that has to do with how Godzilla not only looks like pure nightmare fuel, but his actions in the film as well. If I were watching this movie at 7 years old, my skin would crawl to the floor. The creature in the context of the film is a word I was genuinely not expecting to use. Frightening. And I did not sense a single ounce of remorse in the titan’s actions. Everything sinister he did, he did on purpose. And if he had it his way, he would do those things three times over. Sure, watching Godzilla destroy things is cool. But that is only enhanced by the humans at the center of it all who did not ask for any of this to happen. It’s just there. Every time he does something destructive, I’m panicking in the back of my mind. Anybody remember “Halloween Kills” and how cool it was to see Michael Myers go to town on people? Here’s the thing about that movie, the characters are honestly forgettable. I don’t care if Michael Myers chops them up to pieces and plays with their body parts for fun. Because I was never attached to those people. As soon as most of this movie’s characters are introduced, I am fully engaged and I never want to let go of my attachment to them.

If there are any flaws with this movie, they do not bother me specifically. But I should note that as I watched the movie, there are a couple things that made for a slightly predictable structure. Although I say that in full appreciation of how the movie lays everything out in its narrative. You can be predictable and still be great. In this film’s case, the predictable moments work because they feel earned. As a matter of fact, every moment in this movie, regardless of predictability, feels earned, and that is because time is given to establish the characters. Their struggles. Their aspirations. Their everyday lives. When certain things happen later in the movie to these characters, it makes my initial attachment to them worthwhile. I was not expecting a Shakespeare-level screenplay out of a movie with a giant atomic monster, but ladies and gentlemen, we have one. “Godzilla Minus One” is doing very well in the United States. Yes it is based on a popular property, but it certainly helps that the property is handled with care and respect.

In the end, this movie took me from being a “Godzilla” appreciator to a “Godzilla” fan. This film made me not only excited to see what could be done with “Godzilla” next, but it intrigues me to look back at a ton of the “Godzilla” material I have not seen. In fact, you may remember I used the 1954 “Godzilla” to set an example of something in this review. Fun fact, I actually ended up watching that film for the first time because of how much of an impact this movie had on me. Similarly, I am quite curious as to what Takashi Yamazaki has up his sleeves next. Because as far as I am concerned, this is god-tier writing and equally as incredible directing. He aces this picture like a boss. Every actor in this film is admirable and brings out the best in their character. This movie’s interpretation of “Godzilla” is one of the most horrifying sights I have ever come across. The climax of this film is captivating. The score is booming. And there is a sense of awe and wonder I got out of this film I was not expecting. I ended up crying at the end because of how great the final scene was. I genuinely felt like I was 7 years old and just discovering some of my favorite films like “Star Wars.” This film was a ride like no other, delivering a narrative that makes many others from this year look utterly inferior. It is amazing what four years can do. When I watched “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” back in 2019, I gave it a 1/10 because of bad characters, headache-inducing scenes, and the absolute lack of satisfaction I felt as soon as the movie was over. Little did I know what we would get in 2023 from Japan. I am going to give “Godzilla Minus One” a 10/10!

“Godzilla Minus One” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Ferrari.” The film is not in theaters yet, but I did manage to catch a screening of it earlier this month. Also, be sure to look out for my reviews for “The Boy and the Heron,” “Dream Scenario,” “Maestro,” “Wonka,” “Migration,” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Godzilla Minus One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Godzilla” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Napoleon” is directed by Ridley Scott (The Last Duel, House of Gucci) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Joker), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Tahar Rahim (A Prophet, The Mauritanian), and Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding, An Ideal Husband). This film is about the rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, diving into many aspects that define the individual, in addition to his relationship with his wife, Josephine.

I was looking forward to “Napoleon” as I am a fan of Ridley Scott. The trailers undoubtedly looked epic and it delivered a similar vibe to another historical epic Scott mastered in his time of making it, “Gladiator.” And of course, with a prominent, talented thespian like Joaquin Phoenix at the forefront, I thought we could be in for something special. Unfortunately, when the reviews started coming out for this film, that is when I decided to lower my expectations, as it seemed to stray away from historical accuracy. But as someone who looks for entertainment in his movies, I can live with a little bending of history as long as you can make a good movie out of it so I tried not to get too concerned. Unfortunately, I walked out of “Napoleon” almost half asleep. And that is really weird to say because one of the positives I have about this movie is the immersive sound mix. It is an enormous aid during the battle scenes. As much as I love Ridley Scott, I think this film is quite a dud.

This film feels rushed, and yet, it somehow managed to bore me with a two and a half hour runtime. I can sit through a two and a half hour movie. Some of my favorite movies are longer than that. But this was painful. I think the one redeeming quality of this movie was watching the uncomfortable relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. But when I say that is a redeeming quality, I must also note that it is like watching a car crash at times. There are certain moments between these two that are intriguing, but there are others where the intrigue comes in, but in a such a haphazard manner that I would feel as if I am doing myself a disservice if I look away. Now to be fair, the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby is admirable in regards to how their characters are written and performed.

As we age, there is a tendency that people define themselves over who they surround themselves with, their legacy, how things will be carried on after they’re gone. And when it comes to displaying Napoleon’s desire to keep things afloat and continue his legacy to the next generation, these traits are emitted with passion on Joaquin Phoenix’s part. My favorite parts of the movie, or at least the ones I cannot stop thinking about, all involve Napoleon’s burning desire to have a child. I think the way the movie handles this segment of the story is surprisingly decent, even if it does get a little over the top.

Speaking of over the top, that is one of my biggest negatives of the film. Phoenix and Kirby shine in their individual roles, but there are plenty of other individuals on screen, and their acting ability has me questioning whether I was actually watching something from a director as renowned as Scott. There are select lines from certain characters that feel like they came out of a high school TV production class. Sometimes those lines are delivered with passion, but they are delivered with a certain passion that would probably be best used in an animation or a comedy as opposed to a somewhat grounded drama. In fact, the movie sort of crosses a line at times into comedy that I have no idea if it was actually intended. There are select scenes that play out in a much funnier manner than I would have imagined them. It almost spirals into a “so bad it’s good” territory, which is a phrase I was not expecting to use when reviewing a Ridley Scott movie.

Even with my issues, I must admit, “Napoleon,” like many of Ridley Scott’s films, is easy on the eyes. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, like usual, is beautiful, even if some of the shots feel a tad rushed in the final edit. The locations are excellent, fit their scenes, and bring life to the production. The production design from one of Scott’s regulars, Arthur Max, is outstanding. The costumes have notable detail. The film is a crisp step back in time. But just because “Napoleon” nails its style, does not mean the same can be said for its substance.

I was bored immensely with the film’s pacing, its story. Everything. There are several moments where I kept asking myself if the movie was over. And the worst part is knowing that this is not a complete product. This is just a lackluster Cliffs Notes edition of a larger tale, because it has been revealed that this production will have a four hour extended version. I kind of get why you would not want to release a four hour movie in theaters, but I would sit through one if I had the time if it meant the pace and story would bring more appeal. Here, it kind of feels rushed and it lacking in engagement.

When it comes to my time studying history, I was off and on as a student. In my opinion, “Napoleon” feels like reading a history textbook. And I do not use that comparison lightly. Basically this whole movie is one giant chapter or unit that I have to go through, and I am passively taking it all in to the best of my ability due to of my lack of interest. I cannot tell you everything that happened in the movie, so if you were to hand me a quiz I would probably not do so hot. And much like reading a textbook, I failed to find any entertainment value in what was in front of me. If I wanted Ridley Scott to entertain me with a slice of history, I will just go back and watch “Gladiator.” I will go back and watch “The Last Duel.” “Napoleon” just doesn’t do it for me. And I think a big part of it is because of how much the movie dives into. It feels like we are hopping from one place in time to another lickety split. With a movie like “The Last Duel,” one of my new favorites from Ridley Scott, there is a central idea the characters have to deal with that remains consistent. In fact, we see it play out a few times in different ways, which makes for a compelling narrative. The film is digestible despite being drawn out. So much happens in “Napoleon” that I would almost argue you need a longer runtime to actually appreciate it. Maybe this would be a good miniseries, but I think the spectacle aspect that is best witnessed in a cinema is probably what could have kept it from going in that direction. And if you are asking, no, I do not have plans to check out the extended cut of this movie. I have better things to do with my time.

In the end, “Napoleon” is a massive disappointment. This movie takes one of the most talked about historical figures of all time and wastes him in a dull, uninteresting, downtrodden mess that nearly put me to sleep. It is much less a story than it is a series of events that failed to capture my interest. The only real shining spot of the film are the performances given by Phoenix and Kirby as Napoleon and Josephine respectively. In fact, part of me wanted to see more of the Josephine character, I feel like she at times offered a more compelling presence than Napoleon did. I have seen movies like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” handle Napoleon Bonaparte from a much more comedic angle. Somehow I continue to think about those attempts at showcasing the character in a much more positive light than I do with this two and a half hour historical so-called “epic.” Yes, it’s technically glorious. You know what was also technically glorious? “Jupiter Ascending!” But you don’t see me raving about the characters of that movie every now and again. I am going to give “Napoleon” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of my Ridley Scott movie reviews, I just did a themed month called “Ridley Scottober” where I discuss four Ridley Scott films in depth. That said, feel free to check out my reviews for “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” “All the Money in the World,” and “Blade Runner.” My next review is going to be for “Godzilla Minus One,” and boy, I cannot wait to share this one with you all. But, I am going to have to wait. Because my next post is going to be an update on Blu-ray Movie Collection! Stay tuned! If you want to see this, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Napoleon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a historical figure? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!