“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” 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!
Before we begin this review, you may notice that compared to some of my other reviews, this one is not exactly as visually heavy or varied as some of my others. That is because this film is technically not out yet. I got to see it at South by Southwest this year, at which point there were no trailers or marketing for the film. That is still the case now. So if this post looks jarring, that is because I am working with what’s available. With that said, enjoy the review.
“High Tide” is written and directed by Marco Calvani (A Better Half, The View from Up Here) and stars Marco Pigossi as Lourenço. In this slice of life drama, a queer undocumented Brazilian immigrant living in Provincetown, Massachusetts questions his purpose.
I am a proud Bay Stater. I was born in Melrose, Massachusetts, grew up one town north in Wakefield, went to college in Newton, and currently work in Boston. I also enjoy the occasional trip to Dunkin’, a good ballgame at Fenway, and a fine round of candlepin bowling. Despite living in the Bay State all these years, I have probably been to Cape Cod maybe six times in my life. The last time being 2015. While that may be more than some people, this is something I consider to be a weak spot of mine as a New Englander given how big of a destination it is to some people around here. Safe to say, I have never visited Provincetown. This brings up my first, and perhaps biggest positive of “High Tide,” this movie practically took me on a vacation.
The overall look of “High Tide” is stunning. There is almost no other way to put it. Obviously, Provincetown is a beachy area at the tip of Massachusetts, so there is no doubt it is going to look nice. Getting pristine shots of a town by the water can sometimes be a layup, but everything in the frame felt completely atmospheric. From the opening shot of the film, I thought I was in the middle of the ocean. It practically commands your attention and begs you not to look away. At times I felt like I was on the beach. I was in the middle of town. I was feeling a calm breeze. Each location delivered a great mix of immersion and beauty. If I had to point out one thing though, sometimes the imagery looked a little darker than I anticipated. I watched the film in a theater I have never been to before so for all I know it could have been the quality of the projector. But it does not change the fact that what was on screen enchanted yours truly from start to finish.
Genre-wise, “High Tide” is best described as a romantic drama. It is wholeheartedly serious from start to finish, but there is an endless pinch of innocence in its storytelling. Even when dealing with heavier issues, there is always a sense of lightheartedness in the background. Never once does the film sway too far in one direction or the other, nor do the tones clash to the point where everything feels overdone. And it feels weird to say that the movie feels lighthearted, but it does. Because the reality of the film is that it centers around a man who is dealing with extravagant issues. Many great protagonists have their obstacles, and Lourenço is no exception. His visa is about to expire. He has a distant lover. But even when these issues are brought into the fray, the film delivers a calming vibe that fails to escape my mind. In fact, if I had a critique to name, if you can call it one, I would almost argue the film is almost too light given what it deals with sometimes. But a positive experience is a positive experience. I like to feel good. Who doesn’t? I am not complaining all that much.
But perhaps one of the big reasons why my mind is in a state of calm within a sea of troubles, kind of like our protagonist at times, is the romance he has with a character by the name of Maurice, played by James Bland. This is my first James Bland anything. Movie, TV show, you name it. I hope to see him in more material soon because he knocks his performance out of the park. I doubt Bland is going to win any Oscars, but there is a subtlety to his presence, his actions. There is something about his time on screen that emits perfection.
The reality is, when it comes to movies heavily revolving around romance, if the chemistry does not click between the two leads, then it is difficult for me to buy into their relationship. Maybe even root for them. Shoutout to “Anyone But You” for breaking my brain several months ago. Although in terms of chemistry, this movie hit the jackpot. There is a simple moment with these two in a bedroom right next to each other that brought forth such a charming vibe out of both of these characters. Marco Pigossi and James Bland work individually, but when put together, they bring out the best in each other. Of course, these are also two physically attractive men, so I am sure that helped certain scenes to some degree.
However, I wonder how well this film will actually do by the time it comes out. The film is very well done. It is a stellar feature debut from Marco Calvani. In fact, the only actor I could tell you I knew who they were before going to see this movie was Marisa Tomei, who also serves as an executive producer. By the way, she does a good job in this film. The reality is there are not many recognizable names. The names do not need to be big for me to get in the door, but I understand this reality is not the same for everyone. So it is my duty as someone who saw this film to tell you that it is worth watching when it comes out. It is a film that based on my experience, definitely handles serious topics, but it did so in such a way that failed to make me feel overly awful or icky. Even when things where tough in the forefront, there is a sense of joy in the background. As a slice of life picture, “High Tide” is completely watchable and worth your time.
As I said in the start of this review, one of “High Tide’s” strengths is its ability to take me somewhere beautiful. In this case, Provincetown. But when you consider the phenomenal chemistry between the two leads, the overall vibe of the picture, and how our characters handle their situations, sometimes it goes to show that it is not about the destination, it is the journey. And as far as the journey goes, the movie certainly delivers a fine one.
In the end, “High Tide” is probably not going to be the movie I will hail as this year’s top dog, but it is one that I am glad I went out of my way to see at South by Southwest this year. It deals with several tones in such a way where nothing feels tangled or overwhelming. The cinematography is immaculate. The story and characters are a delight. I have no idea when this movie is going to have a wide release, but whenever it comes out, I recommend giving it a watch. I am going to give “High Tide” a 7/10.
“High Tide” premiered at South by Southwest this past March. No official future release date or schedule has been given.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Kung Fu Panda 4.” I love the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise. The first two movies are honestly some of the best creations to have ever been put out by DreamWorks Animation. I watched the first one incessantly as a child. I think the second film could possibly be better. I think of the first three movies, the trilogy capper is easily the weakest. So how will this fourth installment fare? We shall see. 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 “High Tide?” What did you think about it? Or, did you go to South by Southwest this year? Tell me about your experience! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“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!
“Bob Marley: One Love” is directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green (We Own This City, King Richard) and stars Kingsley Ben-Adir (Secret Invasion, One Night in Miami…), Lashana Lynch (No Time to Die, Captain Marvel), and James Norton (Happy Valley, Flatliners). This film follows the titular reggae musician in his journey in music and to overcome his difficulties.
When I surf the Internet or have conversations in my social circles, one thing that sometimes comes up just so happens to movie trailers. Specifically, the idea of seeing the same trailer over and over again at the movie theater. I remember a colleague of mine saying that this happened to them for “Argylle.” And I can say that is one I remember seeing quite a bit as well. But if I had to name a trailer or marketing campaign that has done such a thing for me recently, it would be the one for “Bob Marley: One Love.” To be fair, they put the first trailer out months in advance, so it had the opportunity to be shown plenty of times. But almost every time I went to the movies, it flashed on the screen.
Based on the unlimited exposure “Bob Marley: One Love” has given me alone, I hoped it wouldn’t suck. Partially because, well, “Argylle” did. When you play a trailer enough times to equal a short movie, then I kind of hope by the time I see it, I don’t feel duped. That said, the movie did not look like the next big thing, but by no means did it look awful. There was potential between factors such as the story and Ben-Adir playing the lead role.
Unfortunately, when it comes to films about musicians or music in general, this failed to hit the right notes for me.
To be frank though, it made me question my intelligence. I understand a lot of movies. Sometimes I understand movies will mean certain things to certain people. Sometimes I get that art in general can be open-ended. “Bob Marley: One Love” seems for the most part, straightforward, but it reminded me of one of my weak spots. Languages.
I am not saying I refuse to learn or understand foreign languages, what I am saying is that whenever I am tasked with doing so, say for when I was in school, I found it to be incredibly difficult. But I am always thankful whenever movies have subtitles because they help me understand what is going on. “Bob Marley: One Love” is in English, but a lot of it is spoken through Jamaican accents, which I do not usually hear every day. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I appreciate the authenticity. I just wish, and this harkens back to my struggles, I could have been more engaged with it.
I am NOT asking people from this movie to sound like they’re from Ohio. I am just saying that if I were able to see the future, I probably would have asked for a different fate where I could have subtitles flashing on screen throughout the film. Simple as that. It is sad that an issue like this is detracting from my overall experience, but facts are facts.
Ever since “Parasite” director Bong Joon Ho won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture, International Feature during the 2020 edition of the ceremony, there is one quote I have often used in regards to watching certain movies.
“Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” -Bong Joon Ho
That quote specifically applies to foreign flicks or films not mostly executed in my native language, which would be English. But a part of me thought Bong Joon Ho’s quote could be applied to “Bob Marley: One Love” as well. The movie is part of the Hollywood system and heavily marketed to North American audiences, but as I watched the film, I had trouble deciphering some of what’s being said. Now, maybe my hearing is deteriorating. Maybe I watched “Oppenheimer” one too many times and now I’m paying the price. But it is also possible that I just was trying my best to understand every word that was being said by certain characters, and for whatever reason, it just wasn’t coming through. There is nothing wrong with authentic accents or voices that link to a certain part of the world. That said, if I were to go back and watch “Bob Marley: One Love” a second time, which I am probably not going to, I’d want subtitles.
I am going to give props to “Bob Marley: One Love” for perhaps delivering an authentic, lifelike experience when it comes to several characters interacting with each other or talking with one another. But if we are simply going by first impressions, I felt a little lost watching this film. A bit disengaged perhaps. Because for all I know, I could latch onto a number of the conversation scenes during this movie, but I could not pick up on everything the characters are saying. I remember a few years ago when I saw the 2021 remake of “West Side Story” for the first time and they had a few scenes where they had characters speaking in Spanish, and there were no subtitles on screen. For the record, I dropped out of Spanish I in high school a couple weeks into the class, so I’m no expert on the language. But even I got a sense of the context of what was going on without subtitles. Now when I look at “Bob Marley: One Love” it feels weird knowing that I am going from comprehending a language I do not speak, to not getting a clue of what was going on in this movie in English. I know not every movie can be universal to everyone. But my lack of understanding of what was going on through the dialogue severely hindered my experience. It could have been a lot better.
Even with my complaints, I will not deny that Kingsley Ben-Adir was a good pick to play the titular role. I thought he had charisma, pizzazz, and he also looked the part. And it is almost hard to imagine other people filling in the shoes of this role. When it comes to the overall chemistry in the film, Ben-Adir does a good job with latching onto just about every other character in sight. I am not saying this performance is going to win an Oscar, but as far this movie goes, he does a good job. And honestly, while there are no abominable performances in the movie, there are no other real standouts either.
But if there is another standout, I would have to say the soundtrack is sometimes pretty good. Obviously, this is a music-based film so this should not be a huge surprise, but the moments where we end up hearing Marley’s music make the film a tad better.
Although I want to talk about the part of the movie that for me, really let me down. The ending. It is not heartbreaking per se. It is not offensive to other people. It is by no means a crime against humanity. But the best way I can describe this ending, primarily from a filmmaking and cinematic perspective, is “lazy.” Because I came into this movie with a certain expectation, and once we get to the end, once it feels like we are getting to that point, the movie stops and delivers such an expectation in a way that honestly feels slapped together. I do not know how to talk about this moment without saying the words “spoiler alert,” which come to think of it, would be a weird thing to say about a movie based on real people and true events. But as we got to the ending, my pupils lit up, and my dilation nearly became an eyeroll. The movie started, to some degree, getting better. Or so I thought. It put a massive dent on what I already thought was an underwhelming experience.
The potential is there for a good story regarding this material in particular. I think it is a story that could make a figure like Bob Marley attach to a great span of this world. It would get a lot of people to feel bad for him and root for him. But there are so many little things in the movie that left me unsatisfied. The acting is okay, but I just wish I could have been more attached to the characters. Pacing-wise, “Bob Marley: One Love” is an enigma. The movie is somehow too long to catch my absolute interest. Yet as soon there are crevices where something actually manages to catch my interest, it does not take long for the movie to become boring. This movie came out the same weekend as “Madame Web,” which I saw first. “Bob Marley: One Love” is not “Madame Web” bad, but it is still not good.
In the end, “Bob Marley: One Love” is off-key. I was bored. I was disengaged. I wanted to leave. Now, the film is by no means the worst I have ever seen, but there is nothing that stands out about it that makes me want to watch it a second time. As conventional as say, “Bohemian Rhapsody” may appear, I was more engaged with that film and how it handles its characters. I thought it was a story where I could latch on from start to finish. Additionally, as much as I liked Ben-Adir’s lead performance, it is a far cry from Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury. “Bob Marley: One Love” tries to take a compelling concept to the finish line. But in terms of execution, I felt it needed to pick up the pace just a bit. Maybe a second viewing with subtitles would make the experience better, but I was not riveted enough in my first viewing to warrant a second viewing. I am going to give “Bob Marley: One Love” a 4/10.
“Bob Marley: One Love” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for my most anticipated movie of 2024, “Dune Part Two.” Does it live up to the hype? You’ll have to wait and see. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” and “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Bob Marley: One Love?” What did you think about it? Or, who is an artist whose story would make for a good biopic? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Drive-Away Dolls” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Fosse/Verdon), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers) Beanie Feldstein (Booksmart, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising), Colman Domingo (Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, Rustin), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Bill Camp (The Queen’s Gambit, The Night of), and Matt Damon (Oppenheimer, The Martian). This film centers around two women who find themselves intertwined with crime-riddled shenanigans during their last minute road trip to Tallahassee, Florida.
So far, February has not been kind to yours truly. At least in terms of the movies we are getting. Shoutout to “Madame Web” for literally slapping me across the face, kicking me in the shin, and gouging out my eyeballs. Then again, it’s February. I should not be surprised that we are getting some underwhelming sacks of crap. But even over the past decade there is often at least one film in February that not only stands out, but ends up being a contender for best film of the year. In 2014 there was “The LEGO Movie.” In 2016 there was “Deadpool.” In 2019 there was “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World.” But in this instance, it seems that February is back to its usual shenanigans of destroying any chances of good times at the movies unless the movie you’re seeing came out in the previous year.
Well, “Dune Part Two” happened, but that’s another story for another time.
Speaking of “Dune Part Two,” I have to say of all the movies coming out in February this year, “Drive-Away Dolls” takes my second place position for my most anticipated title of the month. That is one spot below “Dune Part Two,” so at least I had something to look forward to the week before that one came out.
And thankfully, I would have to say “Drive-Away Dolls” is a delight. It contains two likable leads, a well-rounded supporting cast, and plenty of intriguing moments that are accentuated by good characters. Many of the film’s wins perhaps would not be possible if it were not for Ethan Coen’s vision. I have not seen all of the Coen Brothers’ movies, regardless if they are solo or together. That said, this one works because it successfully delivers a big bang in such a short runtime. The scenes fly by partially because of fast-paced dialogue and fairly tight editing. There are moments to breathe, but I will not deny that the movie gives quite a bit in just 84 minutes including credits.
Technically speaking, this is one of the most vibrant films I have watched in recent memory. This film is colorful, bright, and polished. One film I watched earlier this month was “Lisa Frankenstein,” and in that review I say the film “looks like something from another world.” When I look back at that movie and compare it to “Drive-Away Dolls,” they sometimes feel similar from a looks perspective. Both offer spectacular lighting that offers a bit of variety from scene to scene. Some of the costumes in both projects stand out. And there are moments where even the sets are easy on the eyes. There is a particular hotel in “Drive-Away Dolls” that not only looks exquisite, but beautifully fits the tone of the movie. Every moment we spend in this hotel with our two leads is worthwhile.
Speaking of the two leads, not only do Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan give solid performances that allow the duo to be as dynamic as possible, but I cannot see anyone else playing them. I have respect for both of these actresses. I have not had a ton of experience with Margaret Qualley, but I thought she shined like the sun in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” one of my favorite Quentin Tarantino flicks. I noticed some of her mannerisms from that movie seem to make their way into her role of Jamie as well. And while I would not specifically call “Drive-Away Dolls” a comedy per se, there are plenty of comedic elements. There is a natural goofiness, if that is even the correct term to use, to the main duo that is incredibly palpable. The movie does a good job at fleshing this duo out and authenticating them. They feel like they belong in a world like the one this movie presents.
And of course, Geraldine Viswanathan plays the other leading lady, Marian. Sticking with the comedy aspect, I think Viswanathan also does a good job at playing up some of the more comedic parts of the film. I should not be surprised though given her background. She was in one of my favorite comedies of 2018, “Blockers.” She was also a regular in TBS’s “Miracle Workers,” which is a fantastic show. Viswanathan is a natural when it comes to matching her personality with the movie’s tone.
But just because there are comedic moments in the film, does not mean the it refuses to get serious for a moment or two. Multiple tones intertwine beautifully and in no way feel inconsistent. That said, knowing what this movie is about, how the events progress, and the way everything unfolds, of course comedy is to be expected out of something like this. I do not want to give any spoilers as to certain things that happen in the movie as the marketing shrouds some things in secrecy and I was admittedly surprised when certain things come up, but this movie gets wild.
On top of Qualley and Viswanathan, you have an amazing group of supporting actors. Need any more proof this film scores big in the comedy department? Watch Beanie Feldstein play Sukie the cop. Perfect is a word I wish to use sparingly in life, but Feldstein’s performance comes close to perfection. Bill Camp as Curlie has a notable presence throughout the picture. And Matt Damon easily makes the most of his screen time. Similarly, I think I made the most of my time watching this film. I would give it a thumbs up.
In the end, “Drive-Away Dolls” is quite good! In fact, sometimes, it delivers a flair only a movie of its kind can bring to the table. Great acting. Great directing. Eye-popping aesthetics. What more could you want? “Drive-Away Dolls” is not the most surprising movie of all time, and when it comes to quality I have to admit there are better movies from the Coens, not to mention in general, but if you want a good movie that could make for a decent one time watch, “Drive-Away Dolls” is an entertaining ride. I am going to give “Drive-Away Dolls” a 7/10.
“Drive-Away Dolls” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you liked this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” and “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Drive-Away Dolls?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some good road trip movies that come to mind? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Madame Web” is directed by S.J. Clarkson (The Defenders, Jessica Jones) and stars Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, The High Note), Sydney Sweeney (Anyone But You, Euphoria), Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold), Celeste O’Connor (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Selah and the Spades), Tahar Rahim (The Serpent, The Mauritanian), Mike Epps (The Hangover, Next Friday), Emma Roberts (Nerve, Scream Queens), and Adam Scott (Parks and Recreation, Big Little Lies). This film centers around a woman named Cassandra Webb. When this paramedic discovers she is clairvoyant, she tries to balance learning about her past all the while protecting the future of three teenage girls.
In the moviegoing market, comic book movies are a dime a dozen nowadays. But there are reasons for that. For starters, a lot of them have received positive reviews in recent years. DC titles like “Joker,” “The Suicide Squad,” and “Wonder Woman” have received a lot of love over the years. In the case of the first title, it even got some recognition at the Academy Awards. The MCU has had a lot of positive critical reception and have been darlings with fans and audiences. On Sony’s side, the animated “Spider-Verse” titles have tons of dedicated fans. But let’s not forget the real reason why these films keep getting made. It’s the same reason every film gets made. Profit.
Films like “Iron Man 3,” “Aquaman,” and “Captain Marvel” for example, all made more than a billion dollars. Naturally, Sony wants a piece of that pie as well. And it’s not like they’re a stranger to it. Their collaborations with Marvel Studios, “Spider-Man: Far from Home” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” both joined the billion dollar club. At the time, 2002’s “Spider-Man” became the fastest movie to ever reach $100 million at the box office. But in recent years, the studio has moved over to making films about Spider-Man characters without the use of the webhead as its primary protagonist. “Venom,” despite how much I think it is hot garbage, made more than $856 million. “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” even though it came out when the COVID-19 pandemic kept some audiences at home, still managed to pass the $500 million mark. Then came “Morbius…” With the film grossing $167.5 million against a reported $75 million budget, it barely reached a point of breaking even.
And some may ask why these films seem to be making less than some of their competitors. While there are other factors that definitely come into play, I can shed light on one of them. These films are just not as memorable or high quality compared to say a lot of the MCU installments we have gotten over the years.
If you all remember my review for “Morbius,” I railed that movie into the ground. I wondered why Sony decided to get the writers of “Gods of Egypt,” Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, to pen the picture. Maybe they are nice people. Maybe they save kittens from trees on a regular basis, I have no idea, but it does not change the fact these two are some of the worst writers in Hollywood. I was especially shocked that Sony saw “Morbius” and thought, “You know who we should get to write our next comic book film?” The guys who gave us that schlocky Jared Leto film we pushed back for a couple years! As for the one trailer released in this film’s lackluster marketing campaign, it honestly did not help things. But of course, there have been plenty of uninteresting trailers to good movies. But what did I think of the movie itself? Well, to answer this question, I am just gonna have to ask anyone who is reading this to strap themselves in. Because this movie is getting the angry, tangent-filled review it deserves. Why? Because this movie is one of the worst I have ever seen in my entire life. I am not exaggerating. I am not being hyperbolic. This may be the worst film of the decade. Period. End of sentence. Done. Finito. The rain has taken the spider out.
This film is the first I have seen where they flashed the Columbia Pictures 100 years logo. I guess it only took a century to make something as truly diabolical and asinine as whatever this ridiculousness happens to be. I do not know how they did it. But somehow, Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless wrote a film that is worse than “Morbius.” Get ready guys, I am about to do something I hoped I would not have to do, use “Morbius” as THE POSITIVE.
While “Morbius” was not great, the film at least started with a hint of promise. Looking back, the film had an okay, not great, but mildly amusing first act that did an alright job at establishing a key relationship in the film. You got to know Michael. You got to know Milo. It actually helps the film somewhat as it shoddily progresses. In “Madame Web,” I was about to break just from scene one.
As far as big budget movies go, this is one of the most headache-inducing I have watched. This may seem like a small thing, but there are a couple moments in the film that had these unnecessary zooms. It felt like the cameraman was trying out a camera for the first time and attempting to figure out how the zoom works! It’s that bad! Of course, the cringeworthy dialogue from the beginning did not help much either. And if you like cringeworthy dialogue, fasten your seatbelts, because you are in for a treat! This movie has it in spades! Disappointingly, “He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died,” is not one of those lines. Yep, that infamously awful line from the trailer, it’s not in the movie. As for the other straight up abysmal utterances of words and phrases that did make it into the final project, they are not much better.
What makes “Madame Web” inferior to “Morbius?” Well, looking back at “Morbius,” I think Jared Leto did a great job staying in character the entire time and Matt Smith had the energy of a lively game show host with an edge. As much as I hate bashing actors nowadays, there is not one performance in the film to write home about.
With the exception of one scene past the film’s halfway mark, I cannot say Dakota Johnson gave her best work in this film. To be fair though, going back to the irritatingly terrible screenplay, it did not help things. The one moment Johnson shines in the film just so happens to be the one halfway decent moment in the screenplay. It is one where we get to have a nice, charming moment between her and another character. It is perhaps the only moment of the movie where any of the characters unleash authentic emotion. It was the one moment of the movie where I didn’t hate myself. Then we get to the next scene, and I am not kidding, where it only took a few lines for me to slap myself in the face like I was the first guy trying to figure out how to cure amnesia.
Dakota Johnson may play the protagonist of the film and had top billing. Given what she had to venture through, I’d argue she was underpaid. Right below her is Sydney Sweeney. In the time it took me to write this review, I think significantly more teenage boys took the time to buy posters of Sweeney to put on their bedroom walls than they did to secure “Madame Web” tickets. Knowing the inexcusably bad execution of her character on the page, I think those teenagers made some comparably reasonable purchases. For one thing, from a casting perspective, I find it hilarious that they ended up casting Sydney Sweeney to play a shy, reserved teenage girl. It might be the funniest casting since getting John Cena to play Vin Diesel’s brother in “F9: The Fast Saga.” Now I have seen twenty-something year old actors play teens decently before, and I have seen suave, confidence-exuding actors play roles that do not quite match those aspects of their real life persona. The profession is called acting for a reason. Look at Ana de Armas in “Knives Out!” She is perhaps one of the most beautiful actresses in the business today, but I don’t think you would get that impression of Ana de Armas if your first watch of her in a movie happened to be “Knives Out.” The best thing I can say about Sydney Sweeney in “Madame Web” is the same thing I can say for Jared Leto in “Morbius.” She did her best with the excruciatingly dull material given to her.
In comic book movie speak, the placement between Sydney Sweeney, the other teenage girls, and Dakota Johnson reminds me of the 2015 “Fantastic 4” reboot. An uninteresting, poorly contrived group of four people that is randomly placed together with no semblance of personality or likability. But you know what? I was able to find more positives in “Fantastic 4” than I did for “Madame Web.” The visual effects look nice, some of the first act was okay, and I think Miles Teller did a good job in the lead role. Meanwhile, “Madame Web” pales visually minus a few creative moments, I rolled my eyes from scene one, and I could not find a good performance even if you put a hypnotist in front of me to convince me that one was in front of me all along.
Speaking of “Fantastic 4,” this film, not to mention their respective distributors, have something in common. They come from similar obligations. Rights maintenance. It’s not show friends, it’s show business. Sony is obligated to commence production on a “Spider-Man” project every five years and nine months. They do not have to release the film, they just have to say that it is in production. After seeing “Madame Web,” I can say to those complaining that studios are not making enough original movies, Sony probably feels your pain. They likely felt that they did not want to make this film and instead, they had to. But you know what they could have done? I don’t know, cancelled it?! Go all David Zaslav on it and scrap it for a tax write-off?! That’s what they could have done! For those who say “Batgirl” should never have been cancelled, I think “Madame Web” may prove why that movie met its fate. After all, “Madame Web” is not making all the money in the world. You know why it is not making all the money in the world? It’s unwatchable! Simple as that!
As a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which this movie does not connect to, I recognize that the entirety of that timeline is not based on the vision of one director, or writer. A lot of it traces back to Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios. As much as I am not one for what many would call studio interference, I will not deny that a lot of the success of the MCU is owed to Feige and his ability to balance connectivity from one project to the next. Not everything is a hit. There have been duds like “Thor: The Dark World,” but everything makes sense and at least feels like it is coming from some hint of passion. Feige cares about what goes on the screen. The filmmakers care about what goes on the screen. I am not saying this film’s director, S.J. Clarkson does not care. But as a whole, this movie feels like made by people who could care less about how it would turn out. Despite how much money these movies make and their extreme presence in popular culture, the MCU movies feel like they are made with love. At least they are when standing next to “Madame Web,” which feels like it was made to fit into a release schedule.
Speaking of release dates, I love how this movie was released on Valentine’s Day. I have never been in a relationship myself, but I nevertheless feel like I am in a fair position to give some advice. If you took your partner to see “Madame Web” on Valentine’s Day, they have every right to use that as a reason to block your phone number, ghost you, or break up with you. I don’t make the rules. I just tell things as they are.
Seriously! Who in their right mind saw “Morbius” and thought the writers should continue working in this cinematic universe? The fact that they were able to conjure a script that is inferior to their previous project is baffling to me.
And if you think I got into the movie’s most shameful moments yet, just wait. You have seen nothing yet. If you have been following this blog for the past five or six years, chances are you may remember my thoughts on “Uncle Drew.” But for those who need catching up, I have to say the movie was not funny, not charming, and completely lacking in any likability whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, “Uncle Drew” has only given me two things. One of the most passionate reviews I have done on this platform, and ire. Not much else. In that review, I titled it the “worst Pepsi commercial ever.” That highly talked about ad with Kendall Jenner has nothing on just how bad that movie was. It was filled to the brim with Pepsi product placement to the point where I almost wanted to chuck a couple Coca-Colas directly at the screen.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think “Madame Web” is now a fine contender to be the worst Pepsi commercial in history.
I am almost scared to know what went on behind the scenes of “Madame Web,” but at the same time, I am curious to know how much money Pepsi shelled out just have the exposure they’ve gotten in this film. Sony films in general are usually obnoxious enough for how much they advertise their own products. Just look at “Gran Turismo!” Not only is that based on a PlayStation exclusive video game, but it also doubles as a Nissan commercial, and ends up making the Walkman an essential element to the story. When it comes to product placement, Sony is arguably the most shameless major studio when it comes to this heinous trend. I understand, movies are expensive and studios need to pay the bills. But why does Pepsi need to be thrown in my face so obnoxiously? At this point, this is not a movie. It’s a giant, uninspired, bloody two hour ad! The real protagonist of this film is not Cassandra Webb, it’s Pepsi!
Speaking of lazy, the ending of this film downright sucks on so many levels. For starters, it reuses footage from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2.” Not only did it feel like a quick copout, but it made me wish I was watching a much better movie! As for other reasons why the ending sucks, I must once again go back to my old friend “Morbius.”
I said one of the reasons that film did not work for me was because it lied in its marketing campaign about certain things. Unfortunately, Sony learned nothing when marketing “Madame Web.” Because there is an entire segment of the trailer dedicated to showing off something regarding the teenage girls. Now, as mentioned, the teenage girls are in the movie. And that “something” I just mentioned is in the final picture. Unfortunately though, that something is used to basically tease a certain thing in the future. Perhaps a “Madame Web 2.” To that I must say, if you cannot give me a cool movie the first time, why should I care about what you are going to give me the second time? The ending of this movie basically just tells me that after being trapped in front of a screen for two hours, it wants me to come back for an occasion where we actually see something potentially worthwhile. One of the flaws of cinematic universes or modern film franchises in general is that everybody is so concerned about building excitement in regards to what’s next to the point where it is easy to forget that you have to focus on the feature that is in front of you. Additionally, we get a costume reveal for our title character and I have to say, it is strange to look at. Maybe it is because so much of this movie looks dark and greyish at times. Compared to a lot of other comic book movies, the color palette looks bleak. If these Sony Marvel movies have one thing in common, it’s that they look dark and depressing. It sometimes turns me off. I get that characters like Venom are often seen as villains, but still.
Honestly though, the movie is sometimes hilarious, but not in a good way. There is an entire subplot dedicated to the birth of a certain character whose name is never mentioned. As a “Spider-Man” fan, I am able to put the pieces together and determine who this character is, but the way this movie goes about this feels insulting and lazy. The subplot also brings out one of the most cringeworthy jokes in the movie. Basically, Emma Roberts’s character reveals her water just broke, to which one of the teenage girls ends up shouting, “Ewwwwwwww!” I am not joking, to say I facepalmed in that moment would be an understatement. If you were in my auditorium and you heard a loud slapping sound out of nowhere, that was me slapping my hand on my face in anger.
And yes, for those who ask, that was the scene that followed the one decent moment in the movie.
From a technical perspective, “Madame Web” has some okay moments in terms of the action sequences, but nothing I will worship until the day I die. In fact, once again, there is one action sequence that further emphasizes my displeasure with Pepsi’s overexposure throughout this turd of a film. I think the weakest part of the film from a technical standpoint is the sound. Now, everything’s clear. I could hear all the dialogue, in its everlasting, infinite, sigh-inducing glory… But there are multiple parts of the film where I thought I was getting brain damage from how loud the movie was. I watched the film in IMAX, which would naturally mean the sound would be louder. But I have been to numerous IMAX experiences and have witnessed plenty where louder sound has only served as a benefit. Take “Oppenheimer” for example. That trinity test scene was bonkers in IMAX. It was something else. It was one of the most riveting things I witnessed in my entire life simply because I felt like I was a part of that scene. Sometimes “Madame Web” was just loud enough to the point where my headache must have gotten irritated by what was in front of it. Speaking of headaches, the way this movie goes about explaining our main protagonist’s powers sometimes got on my nerves. It’s not that I did not understand it, but rather that it was showcased in such a way that messed with my mind the longer it lasted on the screen.
“Madame Web” is an hour and 56 minutes long. Honestly, that runtime is incredibly flawed. According to my calculations, I think I found the perfect runtime for the film. And that runtime is nothing because a film like this should have never been released. The fact that it even got made is mind-blowing. When this film started, I was turned off. As it progressed, I was seething. When the credits showed up, I stormed out of the theater like a young child who got blue shelled by their friend twice in one race during a session of “Mario Kart!”
I wish I were exaggerating. You may think I am simply telling you this for dramatic effect. It’s true. But I assure you, that short paragraph I just wrote, has more substance than “Madame Web” can provide in less than two hours.
In the end, to call “Madame Web” a joke would make sense, but to do that would be insult against comedy. Because comedy makes you laugh. The only thing “Madame Web” did was intensify my anger. I love comic book movies. I know they are not exactly in the best state right now, but I remember walking out of every MCU movie that came out last year. And even if they were not fantastic, they at least had some redeeming qualities. I know a lot of people have been recently bagging on “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and “The Marvels,” but I dare you to watch those two movies and “Madame Web” in a marathon and tell me that “Madame Web” is not the worst of those three. Because those two movies, despite their flaws, manage to pack in some fun. They deliver good action, neat effects for the most part, and have likable protagonists at the forefront. When I say that “Madame Web” is the worst film of the decade, it is hard to imagine such an assessment being a stretch. Between a wasted superhero story where we barely get any superhero DNA throughout, a lackluster villain, bad writing, terrible jokes, obscene dialogue, and tired homages to “Spider-Man” lore, “Madame Web” is an utterly atrocious mess that will go down in history as one of the most asinine, sloppy, downright criminal pieces of cinema that has ever disgraced the silver screen. Martin Scorsese, if you are reading this, I may disagree with you on comic book movies in regards to whether or not they are cinema. But after seeing “Madame Web,” I think it would be wrong to even call it a theme park ride. Why? …Because theme park rides are fun. I am going to give “Madame Web” a 1/10.
“Madame Web” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Drive-Away Dolls!” Hopefully that will serve as a palette cleanser for the fiendish brain cell-eradicator of a movie I just watched. One can only hope. Also coming soon, I will have my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” and “Kung Fu Panda 4.” 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 “Madame Web,” and why did you think it was terrible? Err, sorry! My mind nearly broke for a second, what I meant was, what did you think of the movie? Or, what is the superior project? “Madame Web” or “Morbius?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Lisa Frankenstein” is directed by Zelda Williams and this is her feature-length debut. The film stars Kathryn Newton (Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Blockers), Cole Sprouse (Five Feet Apart, Riverdale), Liza Soberano (Trese, Make It with You), Henry Eikenberry (Euphoria, The Crowded Room), Joe Chrest (Stranger Things, 21 Jump Street), and Carla Gugino (Night at the Museum, Spy Kids). This film is a coming of age story showing the love connection between a young girl and a corpse who returns from the dead.
When it comes to the February 2024 cinematic lineup, “Lisa Frankenstein” is one of those films that had my attention from the moment I heard about it. While it did not look like the next big thing, the marketing showcased plenty to savor. For starters, the idea is kind of clever. I like the concept on the surface. The vibe the film seems to be going for definitely screamed kooky, but with a pinch of romance. This film was set to release the week before Valentine’s day making it an appropriate watch for such a time.
You also have a writer like Diablo Cody behind the scenes, who has not only written films I have enjoyed in the past like “Tully” and “Juno,” but she also has horror experience with “Jennifer’s Body.” I have only seen a bit of the film, but I didn’t dislike what I saw. I think it would be unfair of me to give a score on “Jennifer’s Body” without having seen the whole thing. That said, I recognize it is not Shakespeare.
This film is also the directorial debut of Zelda Williams, a name that I knew for years thanks to the Internet. But for those who do not know who Zelda Williams is, she is Robin Williams’s daughter. Yes, that one. I am not always the biggest supporter of nepotism, and I say that knowing that the film industry is sometimes notorious for it. But I was curious to see if Williams had a knack for this kind of work. While doing research for this review, I found out Williams has a history of making music videos, so she is not new to this industry. And having seen “Lisa Frankenstein,” that makes complete sense. Everything in this film is nicely framed and looks like something from another world. The lighting throughout the film comes in quite a variety. It’s also easy on the eyes. The color grading has this weird pixelated-like gloss to it that I found rather appealing. When it comes to this film’s aesthetic, it is a job well done. At times it felt intimate. At others it felt roomy. At others it feels downright fantastical. I am not sure if this is a proper tech demo movie for say a big screen TV, but maybe it will be serviceable for a 32 inch model.
Unfortunately though, the movie is almost all looks, with little personality. The script has a couple decent lines, but the vibe delivered between said lines feels inconsistent. I understand that this is a movie that blends the reality of the 1980s with the fantasy of a man coming back to life. But it is not enough to make a decent package. If anything, this film feels more like a mish mash than a proper horror comedy at times. It doesn’t really know what it wants to be. Now I say that knowing that we have gotten a decent number of movies over the years that combine genres. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is a proper example. But I also recognize that I would probably not have this complaint if there were anything that would make those genre increments stand out. Sure, this movie has a bit of a throwback feel to 1980s John Hughes coming of age movies like “Weird Science” or “Pretty in Pink,” but it is not as good as those. If I watch “Lisa Frankenstein” again, there is less of a chance that I would finish the film and say “That was fun, another round,” compared to me going “You know what’s a good watch right now? A John Hughes movie.”
Kathryn Newton does an excellent job playing a somewhat twisted, but also kind of innocent lead role. There are a lot of layers to unpack with this character as the movie goes along and while I am not sure what roles Newton will take following this picture, this film goes to showcase her range. She can be dark, she can be down to earth, she can be otherworldly. She can do it all. Going back to the film’s aesthetic, Newton’s hair and makeup are on point. I have no idea if “Lisa Frankenstein” is even going to be considered for any makeup awards during next year’s awards season, it is still too early to tell, but I would say in regards to 2024 cinema, “Lisa Frankenstein” is this year’s first notable contender in that category.
The rest of the cast all do a decent job with their roles. Cole Sprouse proves silence is golden with his portrayal of The Creature. Liza Soberano gives a fine showcase of her talent as Taffy. But aside from Newton’s layered protagonist, I think the character that stood out to me the most in the movie is Carla Gugino as Lisa’s stepmother, Janet.
For some young people, it is hard enough to adapt to a new parent or guardian. “Lisa Frankenstein” presents a reality for our protagonist that makes it come off as near impossible for her to adapt to her stepmother. The movie presents a rivalry between these two that is probably more riveting than it needs to be. And a lot of it is in the performances between these two. Of course, the shenanigans our protagonist gets into plays a significant role as well, but nevertheless.
Once again, this film is directed by Zelda Williams, and despite my negative comments for this film, I am not going to tell her to give up on filmmaking. I think she does a fine job with this movie in terms of bringing various sets and talent to life. Some frames from this picture still linger in my mind because of how stylish they come off. But when it comes to characterization and writing, that is where the movie needs work. It has a great concept but it just doesn’t stick the landing. But I also cannot entirely blame her, because she did not write the film. That job belongs to Diablo Cody, who I like as a writer, but this is not her best work.
In the end, “Lisa Frankenstein” has good intentions, but comes off with lackluster execution. Despite some inklings of quality, I will not deny that this movie could have been better. As a horror movie, it is not that eerie or terrifying. As a comedy, it does not have many laughs. When you take these ideas together, the movie kind of falters in both genres. There are good things about it, yes, but those good things do not justify a rewatch. Those good things barely stand out. That is if they do at all. Kathryn Newton’s great. Sure. Carlo Gugino is terrific. Sure. The design across the board almost couldn’t be better. Double sure. But I also think that if you are at the movies right now, there are better options for your choosing. “Lisa Frankenstein” is not offensively bad. But it could be better. How better? Well, judging by my score I think “Lisa Frankenstein” could be better than a 5/10.
“Lisa Frankenstein” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be a fun one. It is for the most anticipated film in the history of the world, “Madame Web!” Boy oh boy! I am sure everyone is expecting Scene Before’s first EVER 11/10 score on this one… We shall see. Speaking of film reviews, pretty soon I will be dropping my thoughts on “Drive-Away Dolls,” “Bob Marley: One Love,” and “Dune Part Two.” 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 “Lisa Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Diablo Cody script? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“American Fiction” is directed by Cord Jefferson and this is his directorial debut. The film stars Jeffrey Wright (Asteroid City, What If…?), Tracee Ellis Ross (Black-ish, The High Note), John Ortiz (Fast & Furious, Clyde Goes Boating), Erika Alexander (The Cosby Show, Living Single), Leslie Uggams (Roots, Deadpool), Adam Brody (Shazam!, Ready or Not), Issa Rae (Barbie, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse), and Sterling K. Brown (This Is Us, Army Wives). This film is about an author who creates a satirical book under a pen name that becomes bigger than anyone, even he, could have imagined.
As we approach the end of the 2023 film awards season, it is time to discuss a movie that may not be a frontrunner to win all the Oscars this year, but one that has had a respectable share of spotlight. I knew about a lot of movies coming out towards the year’s end, but “American Fiction” was one that kind of came out of nowhere for me. It took me a couple trailer watches, mentions from social circles, and online pundits to drill the title in my head, but the whole idea of the film was something that I could get behind. It looked funny, well-acted, and well-written. Thankfully, when it comes to my expectations, this film hits all three of those checkmarks. The humor is great. The acting is great. The screenplay is great. And what makes all of this even better is that the director of this film, Cord Jefferson, is making this picture his debut.
According to his IMDb page, Cord Jefferson has never once directed anything else before “American Fiction.” This includes other features. This includes shorts. This includes television. Up until now, Jefferson has had a hand in television producing and writing. His resume includes “Master of None,” “Watchmen,” and “The Good Place,” the latter of which I have watched and find quite hilarious. It got me through my recovery after getting my wisdom teeth removed so I feel like I owe something to the people who made that show. And now Jefferson his taking his TV talents and using them to deliver one of 2023’s funniest films.
The ensemble for “American Fiction” can do no wrong. From the commanding, but not quite in your face presence of Jeffrey Wright, to the quality charisma of Tracee Ellis Ross to the flamboyant glory of Issa Rae, the latter of whom makes me imagine that she could eventually become one of my favorite performers in the near future. I thought Rae was a standout in “Barbie.” But she is a different kind of great here. Honestly, I almost cannot see anyone else playing her character. She does a great job not only having a hypnotic presence from scene one, but when we see her read her book, she does a great job at immersing me into the scene and feeling as if I am not only getting to hear the book, but maybe also getting some speck of imagination to the point where I would be mistaken to believe the events of the book are actually playing out in front of me.
As I have grown older, one of things I continue to appreciate about movies is the very idea of how people can take something and deliver a primarily visual experience, but if you have to ask me, “American Fiction’s” greatest asset has to be its dialogue. There are several lines from this film that are contenders to be some of the year’s best. I don’t think any of them will have as monumental of an impact as “Oppenheimer‘s” final line, “I believe we did,” but when it comes to individual lines, there is one quote from the main character that is funny, not only because of its delivery, but because regardless of its context, the more I think about it, the more I feel it applies to some aspects of modern society. Specifically, “The dumber I behave, the richer I get.” In fact, some would say this line even links to how entertainment works nowadays. There seems to be a consensus that we keep making entertainment, whether it is through movies, television, or in this movie’s case, books, arguably for the lowest common denominator. In fact, that falls in line with the main protagonist’s goal as well, because the film follows his journey as an author who cares about and finds passion in what he does, even though he does not have the widest audience. But the more he panders to a demographic or lie about himself, the more successful he becomes.
As for other standouts, the film itself looks beautiful. This film is shot by Cristina Dunlap. Cinematography-wise, it is not the top dog of the year, but it is sometimes enchanting to look at. The film is packed with a variety of eye-popping exterior shots. I may be biased because I am from Massachusetts and this movie is set around various areas I have been to around the state, but I can say that when it comes to showcasing those areas on camera, I will not deny that the showcase itself is rather pleasing. But the film is not just easy on the eyes, but also the ears. Laura Karpman’s score is quite good. It fits every scene well.
While this film may not win Best Picture at the Oscars this year, that said, you never know, it could pull an upset… I will say when it comes to this year’s slate, particularly the movies that are going for the heavy-hitting awards, this film gets some things right that I would say “Barbie” also gets right. Specifically the vibes and tone, mixed together with the overall look of the film. In some sense, “American Fiction” is a down to earth story about people you could probably find in our society, but it also comes off with this slight sense of fantasy. It is hard to describe, but I appreciated it.
I also must note that when I remember this film, I will remember it well for the laughs I had. The smiles I had. But it is a pretty balanced movie in terms of emotion. When we get to know Thelonious’s family, we also get to know his mother, who we find out has Alzheimer’s. While I will affirm the film is not quite as memorable as “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” when you take the main idea of “American Fiction” and combine it with this Alzheimer’s subplot, the two films feel similar tonally. Because “Everything Everywhere All at Once” had tons of multiversal shenanigans, but you also have an intriguing subplot that is more down to earth like the turmoil between multiple family relationships. As for the subplot itself, I thought it was handled with grace and it unleashed a great performance out of Leslie Uggams (right). In terms of story and characters, what “American Fiction” provides on the surface, is intriguing. That said, there is more to it that paints a pretty picture.
In the end, “American Fiction” is unpredictable, exciting, and hilarious. When it comes to commentary, this is one of 2023’s finest works. But it also does something equally as important. Entertain. Once again, this is the first film from Cord Jefferson, and I honestly cannot wait to see what he does next. It is not just a good time, it is a great time. And I think you will have a great time should you decide to watch this film. Not the best of 2023, but it gets a lot of things right. When it comes to flaws, they do exist. I will remember some aspects of this film more than others. Some scenes feel a tad abrupt in terms of flow. But there’s nothing game-breaking. As for my score, I am going to give “American Fiction” a high 7/10, and honestly if I were to watch it a second time, it could go up.
“American Fiction” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more where that came from! Pretty soon I am going to have reviews for “Lisa Frankenstein,” “Madame Web,” “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Drive-Away Dolls” and my most anticipated movie this year, “Dune Part Two.” Also, if you have a lot of time on your hands and you want to find what films defined the art form in 2023, check out the 6th Annual Jack Awards, possibly the biggest waste of time in your entire life. Who knows? If you want to see more great content like this, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “American Fiction?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite directorial debut? I don’t have a concrete answer, but I recently rewatched “Deadpool” over Valentine’s Day, because what other movie would I watch?! That was Tim Miller’s first feature film and it ended up being one of the funniest I have ever seen. If you have an answer of your own, say it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Argylle” is directed by Matthew Vaughn and stars Henry Cavill (Man of Steel, Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, Jurassic World), Sam Rockwell (The Bad Guys, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Bryan Cranston (Malcom in the Middle, Breaking Bad), Catherine O’Hara (Schitt’s Creek, Beetlejuice), Sofia Boutella (Atomic Blonde, The Mummy), Dua Lipa (Barbie), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), with John Cena (Peacemaker, Blockers), and Samuel L. Jackson (Kingsman: The Secret Service, The Avengers). This film centers around a notable spy novelist named Elly Conway who finds out the events she happens to be writing in her next book are similar to those that are playing out in front of her.
I have not seen all of Matthew Vaughn’s work, but I am a fan of the “Kingsman” movies. Particularly “Kingsman: The Secret Service.” I have nothing against the second one. I had fun with “The Golden Circle” even though I think there are one or two moments I would rather have not sat through. Elton John alone was worth the price of admission for me. But I would rather honestly forget about Vaughn’s latest feature film, “The King’s Man,” a prequel to those two other movies. If you asked me what the heck happened in that last movie, I honestly would not be able to tell you. I was immensely bored with it and I cannot believe it even got made.
Nevertheless, I was looking forward to “Argylle.” Vaughn’s been on a bit of a downward trend lately, but I figured a fresh idea could give him a boost. You have new characters, a fresh story, but you also have some of Vaughn’s directorial trademarks making a comeback. “Kingsman: The Secret Service” definitely has a flashy, glitzy, in your face style, but it does not mean the movie lacks a good story to back it up. The good news about “Argylle” is that if you like Matthew Vaughn’s style, you will find it here. The bad news, the story ends up falling flat on its face.
I will be fair though. The story is not all bad. If anything, the first act of the film is easily my favorite part. It is the part where I had the most fun, emitted the most laughs, and not once was I ever taken out of it. I like how they handled Elly Conway’s mannerisms and point of view throughout between how she visualizes her stories, how she puts one thing and another together, and there is also a neat first-person perspective shot gimmick that comes into play. I like those techniques. There is also some good action. There is a fight on a train that is nothing short of a thrill ride. It also introduces us to my favorite character in the film, Aidan, played by Sam Rockwell. I have not seen everything Rockwell has done, but one of my favorite works of his is his performance in “The Way Way Back,” a coming of age comedy where he plays a waterpark employee. Having seen “Argylle,” his mannerisms here reminded me of how he executed his more comedic lines in “The Way Way Back.” He is very much a scene stealer and while it is in the trailer, the way he utters, “I love this book!”, got a genuine laugh out of me in the film.
Unfortunately, once the first act concludes, the whole movie enters this spiral of madness that almost gave yours truly a headache. I saw the film in IMAX, and while I love the IMAX experience, I must say that this one was on the verge of breaking me. It was almost too loud, too zany, and too rambunctious. I love when a story keeps you guessing, when it is full of twists and turns, but there is a sense of novelty that is lost once we find out where the movie is taking its characters. The movie is twisty. No doubt about it. A tagline for the film is “FROM THE TWISTED MIND OF MATTHEW VAUGHN.” But the movie throws so much at you all at once that is overwhelming. It is like sitting through ten AP classes at once and being forced to digest those subjects at the same time! I could only take so many notes! Yeah, there are elements to this charade that stick the landing, but there are plenty of others that leave a bit to be desired.
Also, if I have to be real, while the movie has great action in the beginning, I felt it became too much to handle by the end. Going back to “Kingsman,” one of the reasons why I find “The Secret Service” to be a better movie than “The Golden Circle” is because “The Secret Service” had action sequences that appeared to consistently exist in their own reality. They were ridiculous, but they were fun. “The Golden Circle” still has good action, but there are moments where the movie tends to jump the shark that lack a sense of heightened realism. It’s almost as if they broke some sort of rulebook. By the end of this film, “Argylle” felt more akin to “The Golden Circle” than “The Secret Service.” Yeah, there were a couple stylistic moments that pop, but there are others that are too flashy and do not emit much emotion.
There is a moment at the end of the film where it basically pulls a “Batman & Robin.” Unfortunately, as far as I can recall, there is not a single ice pun in the entire film. That’s not cool at all. But what I mean is, if you remember “Batman & Robin,” there is a moment that the titular characters conveniently emit ice skates from their boots to take down some baddies. There is a moment in “Argylle” that instantly triggered a memory of that, and how stupid that instance truly is. There is something involving skates in “Argylle” that is so played up, so over the top, so ridiculous, that it had me shrugging angrily in the middle of the theater! I was dumbfounded by this! How is this convincing?! You kind of have to see it yourself to fully embrace and grasp the feeling I got as soon as it came up. I wanted to roll my eyes.
Unfortunately, “Argylle” basically feels like an adolescent girl’s cringeworthy spy fantasy brought to life, but they gave the keys to Matthew Vaughn to tidy up the writing and make a $200 million movie out of it. It’s flashy, it’s shiny, and everything is all over the place. There’s cats! There’s good-looking men like Henry Cavill and John Cena! There is a kind-hearted, but somewhat shy woman in the center of it all! But unfortunately, those elements do not come together to make a neat package. The film kind of reminded me of Guy Ritchie’s “The Gentlemen,” which from a filmmaking perspective, looks nice, but I cannot say I appreciated the story.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if you want a fun spy movie with Matthew Vaughn, watch “Kingsman: The Secret Service!” In fact, here is another thing that movie does better! Let’s talk about animal companions! Remember how in “Kingsman: The Secret Service” all the spies had to have a dog alongside them? The way they went about that story tactic was essential and delivered plenty of emotion to everyone’s journey in the film. “Argylle” makes it clear that our character is a cat lady, but when it comes to the cat itself, it was almost like watching a Disney animated film trying to utilize its most merchandisable character to the point where the film essentially becomes a commercial. For the record, I am not much of a cat person. So you could say I am biased in my assessment here. But I will also remind you that I am the furthest thing from a dog person! I am even allergic to dogs! Despite that, I can say that “Kingsman: The Secret Service” does a significantly better job at utilizing its animal companion than “Argylle” does in spades. If you want me to be real about “Argylle,” when it comes to fare prominently featuring cat characters, this is not as catastrophic as 2019’s “Cats.” But, this movie certainly had me angrily hissing by the time it was over.
In the end, “Argylle” is just plain bad. This movie has so much gloss and glamour to the point where they just put a bunch of people on sets and forgot to make a movie. I like the cast. Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, Catherine O’Hara, Samuel L. Jackson. These are all big names. And I imagine much like some recent action fare on Netflix such the intolerable “Red Notice,” this could factor into why the film has a $200 million price tag. Honestly, for all I know, Apple is a great streaming service. I have never used it to watch a show. But I have heard titles like “Ted Lasso” and “For All Mankind” are worth seeking out. But their movies are for the most part, forgettable. The one exception was “CODA,” which despite some cliches, was one of the most emotionally powerful movies I have seen in the past couple years. It was perfect. But from “Killers of the Flower Moon” to “Napoleon” and now this hot mess, Apple needs to get their ducks in a row and unleash a good movie. If you know me in real life, you know that I use an Android phone. I use Windows computers. I stream most of my music through YouTube. To get me to buy or invest my time in an Apple electronic would be like getting Howie Mandel to shake my hand. It would be nearly impossible. I wonder if the same fate could be coming to Apple’s movies if they continue to be this sloppily executed and poorly contrived. I am going to give “Argylle” a 3/10.
“Argylle” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “American Fiction!” I have seen so many titles in 2023, but this was not one of them. I had to wait until this year to watch it. But I will have my review up very soon! By the way, I will not give away my final score on the film, but let’s just say that it has already been nominated for a couple Jack Awards! Which leads me to say…
THE JACK AWARDS ARE NEXT SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25th! If you have not already done so, cast your vote now for this year’s Best Picture! Hope you tune in! Be there or be square! 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 “Argylle?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Matthew Vaughn movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 