Cinema

I Saw the TV Glow (2024): A Colorful, Trippy, Unique, Dream-Like Hour and a Half I Would Rather Forget

Posted on by Jack Drees

“I Saw the TV Glow” is written and directed by Jane Schoenbrun (A Self-Induced Hallucination, We’re All Going to the World’s Fair) and stars Justice Smith (Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom), Brigette Lundy-Paine (Atypical, Bill & Ted Face the Music), Helena Howard (The Wilds, Madeline’s Madeline), Lindsey Jordan, Conner O’Malley (Joe Pera Talks with You, I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson), Emma Portner, (Ghostbusters: Afterlife), Ian Foreman (Let the Right One In, Exhibiting Forgiveness), Fred Durst (The Longshots, The Fanatic), and Danielle Deadwyler (Till, The Harder They Fall). This film is about two teenagers who bond over a supernatural television shows that eventually winds up mysteriously canceled.

A24 is one of those names in the film industry that is synonymous with prestige. At least if we are talking the last decade or so in cinema. Even if the film is not the highest in budget, you expect a certain level of quality and artistic merit from each title they distribute. In addition to already having a number of bangers on their hands, their 2022 slate was one of the best I have seen from a distributor. From “X” to “Everything Everywhere All at Once” to “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” to “Pearl,” A24 is one of those companies that is capable of delivering all different kinds of movies with an admirable touch to them in such a short span of time. Now, a couple years later, we are continuing this path of diverse, but nevertheless artistically sound titles. In March, we had “Civil War,” the company’s most expensive film to date. While I was not able to appreciate everything the movie had to offer, I liked the film’s scale and ability to immerse me into just about every scene. I have not seen all of A24’s films this year. I want to check out “Problemista” at some point, but I missed it when it came out, so I will wait on that one. Until then, let’s talk about one I did see, “I Saw the TV Glow.”

The best thing I can say about “I Saw the TV Glow” is that much of the film delivers a colorfully intriguing aesthetic. The best word I can use to describe this film is moody. I found myself transfixed with each frame just wanting to jump inside. The entire film delivers on vibes. It comes off as this fantasy you can somehow place in our own world. I guess you can say the film plays out like a dream. Sure, a lot of it feels like something that could happen in real life. But as I have noticed myself in dreams, there are certain aspects that are much like the reality in which I find myself each and everyday, but there may be some minor change that separates my dream state from that of which I experience in the real world. If you were to tell me that Jane Schoenbrun kept a dream journal and based some of this film off of that, I would buy your claim.

But much like some dreams, the film is kind of forgettable. And you know that saying that horror movies can give you bad dreams? I cannot say this movie has ruined my sleep patterns, but it does not change the fact that “I Saw the TV Glow” does occasionally come off as nightmare fuel. Not in the way I would have hoped…

This is especially noticeable by the end. I am not going to go too deep into the ending because I want to keep spoilers to a minimum, but by the end of this movie, I felt similar, in A24 speak, to how I felt watching “Midsommar.” The film had a clear goal to haunt me, and I just ended up more annoyed with what was happening than anything else. Was this film’s climax perhaps more eerie than the one in “Midsommar?” Perhaps. But much like “Midsommar,” “I Saw the TV Glow” ended in such a way that was less than satisfying. I left the film either wanting more or something different than what I got.

In fact, by the end, the film basically takes one noticeable downward spiral for me. I start the movie intrigued with the plot, intrigued with the characters, and of the course, the aesthetic. That last aspect is the one constant saving this movie for me. “I Saw the TV Glow” feels like two different movies. In one hand, it is a story about a man growing and his bonds with other people all the while finding himself fascinated with a TV series. On the other hand, it is a boring horror show that offers few chills. And of the chills that are offered, they do not have much of a kick to them.

If there are any other notable positives about this movie, it is that it does somewhat remind me about our connection to our favorite media. In this case, we see our main characters bonding over a late-night TV series aimed at somewhat younger audiences, perhaps young adults or teenagers. It also shows how when we grow older, our opinions of that media can evolve as our tastes mature.

This happened to me with “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.” When I watched it in my youth, I liked the action. I liked the adventure. I liked the effects. I liked the sound. I liked a lot of what it had to offer. But as I grew older, the film fell apart for me when I judged it as a story. When I was younger, I was not able to see certain things I watched in a negative light like I do today. When I first watched “Attack of the Clones,” I was not able to determine what a “good” or “bad” movie was. It was something to kill time, and I thought it was a solid time-killer. Then I grew up.

The film shows how sometimes people be blinded by nostalgia, or as it also may suggest, friendship. Maybe we have something we grew up with and have fond memories over that we like for reasons having to do more than that thing’s existence by itself. We see this movie’s established TV show, “The Pink Opaque” as something that connects our characters to a certain degree. At the beginning of the film, we someone reading a guide about “The Pink Opaque.” After our main character talks with the person with said guide, the movie leads itself down a path where they become companions and that show is a commonality between them.

Does Justice Smith do a good job in the lead role? Yes. Does Jane Schoenbrun direct the heck out of this movie? I would say so. In fact, one of the biggest positives is that this movie, at times, comes off as something only she can do. Does this movie take big risks? Of course it does. But unfortunately, unlike some big risks, the ones on display here do not pay off in big rewards. Part of me is glad, per se, that I checked out this movie. But it does not indicate that I had a good time with it. Maybe I just have a slight fascination with torturing myself.

In the end, “I Saw the TV Glow” is like a lot of A24 movies. Unfortunately, unlike a number of them, this one is not that great. But much like just about every one I have seen, it was able to bring out such an enormous reaction out of me. Even though I was not satisfied by the climax, I can say I lowered my jaw a bit as it was happening. The movie reminded me a bit of my obsession with some movies or TV shows I have watched over the years and how in some ways they became a large part of my life. And I have to say of the movies I have seen this year, “I Saw the TV Glow” may have delivered my favorite color palette of them all. That said, in a thumbs up, thumbs down world, this is a thumbs down. I am going to give “I Saw the TV Glow” a 5/10.

“I Saw the TV Glow” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Back to Black,” the brand new movie starring Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Summer Camp,” “Young Woman and the Sea,” “Inside Out 2,” “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” and “Thelma.” 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 watch “I Saw the TV Glow?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a TV show that at one point in your life, or even right now, that you consider to be a personal obsession? For me, my biggest TV show obsession is, and probably always will be, the TBS reality competition “King of the Nerds.” Not only was it a killer hour of cool concepts, likable contestants, and a celebration of geek culture, but it helped my find some of my best friends. Let me know your obsessions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Garfield Movie” is directed by Mark Dindal (Chicken Little, The Emperor’s New Groove) and stars Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The LEGO Movie), Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers, Pulp Fiction), Hannah Waddingham (The Fall Guy, Ted Lasso), Ving Rhames (Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Jack the Giant Slayer), Cecily Strong (Schmigadoon!, Saturday Night Live), Harvey Guillén (What We Do in the Shadows, Eye Candy), Brett Goldstein (Ted Lasso, SuperBob), Bowen Yang (Saturday Night Live, Awkwafina is Nora from Queens), and Snoop Dogg (The Joker’s Wild, Training Day). This film is inspired by the “Garfield” comic strip and centers around the iconic orange feline who reunites with his father all the while needing to complete a high-stakes heist.

The “Garfield” property is one that I never found myself overly attached to. As a child who grew up in the 2000s, I have come across the Bill Murray-led “Garfield: The Movie” and watched it a couple times. I did not have a passion for the material, personally. In my early double digit ages, I have also watched a couple episodes of Cartoon Network’s “The Garfield Show” when we had company at my house and I was not the one controlling the TV. Safe to say, with my limited exposure and lack of memory or experience with the comics, “Garfield” was not something I cared about a lot as a kid.

Speaking of not caring, I felt rather indifferent about “The Garfield Movie.” The only catalysts that could have gotten me invested in “The Garfield Movie” are the trailers looking uniquely bad, and the powers that be deciding some time ago that Chris Pratt is the only person who can lead big animated movies now for some reason. As soon I heard Chris Pratt was voicing Garfield, my first thought was the same when I heard he was voicing Super Mario. And that thought was, “Why?”

Now that I have seen “The Garfield Movie” and have now witnessed Chris Pratt’s performance as the title character, my thought was the same when I finally saw “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and heard Pratt voice the title character in that. And that thought was, “Why?” Genuinely, I do not know how Chris Pratt could have worked in this role. The only defense I could possibly come up with is that Garfield, by nature, is a pretty lazy individual. And when I am hearing Chris Pratt talk, he kind of sounds rather mellow and unenthusiastic. That maybe could be what the movie’s going for, but it doesn’t work for me. And maybe this shows Pratt’s range because he also voiced Emmet in “The LEGO Movie,” which, sure, is pretty much the definition of an everyday, ordinary guy. But Pratt sounds enthusiastic enough in his performance there to put a spin on the everyday nature of the character. If anything, Chris Pratt in “The Garfield Movie” is about as interesting as a trip to DMV. He is lifeless, lacking in flair, and sounds as if he is just getting ready for the fat cat of a paycheck. The best way I can sum up Chris Pratt’s performance in “The Garfield Movie” is to say that I do not see a cat. I just see Chris Pratt in a soundbooth. It is the same problem I had with Dwayne Johnson voicing Krypto in “DC League of Super-Pets.” When you get a big name celebrity like that to be the lead voice of your film, sure, maybe it will boost credibility for select audience members. But to me it almost fails to come off as “acting.” I love “The LEGO Movie,” and Chris Pratt is a standout as the voice of Emmet. But “The Garfield Movie” is not a good fit for him. I did not think Chris Pratt could give a less interesting voiceover than “Onward.” Then “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” happened, and so did “The Garfield Movie.” What a world we live in.

That said, the movie’s supporting cast is a bit better. Samuel L. Jackson does an okay job as Vic (center). Hannah Waddingham, even though she could have been written better, does the best she can with Jinx. I thought Nicholas Hoult gave a much better performance as Jon than I anticipated. I like Hoult, but I was rather surprised he put as much passion as he did into the role. But by far the best performance in the movie is Ving Rhames as Otto, a bull who served as a mascot for a farm. Rhames currently has a consistent career in the voiceover game doing Arby’s commercials. But his performance as Otto proves that he not only has the meats, he has the goods. Also to his advantage, he has the best lines in the movie. There is one line, I cannot remember it verbatim, that he uses to mathematically determine how long it would take for Garfield and Vic to cooperate and work as a team. But for what I remember, based on the way it was executed, it delivered one of the bigger laughs I had during the film. And that transitions into another disappointment. I wish this film were funnier. After all, “Garfield” is an iconic comic strip. You’d expect humor out of something like “Garfield.” And sure, there are glimmers of “The Garfield Movie” that deliver a few laughs, but not a ton.

Animation-wise, the movie delivers a fairly wide color spectrum in certain scenes. There are moments, color-wise, that feel surprisingly bland. But I was impressed with the animation of the Italian restaurant we see at the beginning of the movie. Additionally, there are a few shots that tend to stand out and match the film’s mile a minute pacing. But I cannot say anything regarding the animation is revolutionary or changes the game. Although one compliment I would add is that Garfield himself is well designed. For the most part, he looks like he is straight out of the comic strip. They did a good job at bringing him to life. I just wish he were voiced more effectively.

One thing I took from “The Garfield Movie” is the notion that if this is how the title character is in his other material, then I probably do not have a passion for said character. On paper, Garfield may sound relatable, but his relatability is hard to balance for story like the one this movie is delivering. Garfield’s relatability comes from laziness, unwillingness to get outside, flawed dieting choices, things that make us human. Deep down, some of us can put ourselves in Garfield’s shoes, but throughout this film, no matter how much the plot chooses to progress, Garfield himself appears to lack dimension. In fact, going back to Ving Rhames as Otto, I think he had by far a much better journey in this movie than Garfield did. By the time we got to the end of his portion of the story, it delivered a greater sense of satisfaction to yours truly to what I felt as soon as we got the end of Garfield’s time in the film.

On another note, I was surprised to know how much product placement is in this film. Who directed this? Michael Bay?! Where are the explosions?! Where’s the corny, outdated dialogue? Come on, guys! What are you doing?! I’m guessing this what one of the “Transformers” movies changes into when it needs to shake things up. When it comes to animated movies, “The Garfield Movie” is not quite as bad as “The Emoji Movie” in terms of product placement, but there are obvious winks to FedEx, Popchips, and multiple instances of Olive Garden to the point where I thought I was watching a “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie instead of “The Garfield Movie.”

In the end, “The Garfield Movie” is predictable, disposable, and unmemorable. I would almost argue the movie is too chaotic. Everything gets into gear really quickly to the point where I never found myself fully invested with what was happening. The best phrase I can use to describe this movie is “run of the mill.” I have most definitely seen better, but it is not horrible. It is not the worst thing I ever seen. In fact, with “Madame Web” having released earlier this year, “The Garfield Movie” is not even the worst Columbia Pictures movie we got this year. But the first act at times is a chore to get through. Garfield is rather unadmirable as a character. The story, even with its more complex elements, is somewhat predictable. The ending almost overstays its welcome. And Chris Pratt is incredibly miscast as the titular role. I am going to give “The Garfield Movie” a 4/10.

“The Garfield Movie” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “I Saw the TV Glow.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” “Young Woman and the Sea,” and “Inside Out 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Garfield Movie?” What did you think about it? Also, Garfield clearly loves lasagna to such an insatiable degree. On that note, I must ask, what food would you say is your weakness? I have a number that come to mind, but pizza’s gotta be up there. I literally took a two hour drive from my house a month ago and stayed overnight in a hotel just to try a pizza place I have been eyeing for some time. With that said, let me know down your hunger-inducing weaknesses down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

IF (2024): John Krasinski Brings the Power of Imagination to One of the Best Family Films of the Past Few Years

Posted on by Jack Drees

“IF” is directed by John Krasinski (A Quiet Place, The Office) who also stars in the film as Bea’s Dad in addition to also voicing a Marshmallow. Joining him in this film is a cast including Cailey Fleming (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Walking Dead), Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool, Free Guy), Fiona Shaw (True Blood, Killing Eve), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny), Louis Gossett Jr. (An Officer and a Gentleman, Roots), and Steve Carell (Despicable Me, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy). This film is about a young girl dealing with drastic changes in her life who is suddenly able to see imaginary friends of real people who have grown up and separated from them.

“IF” had me partially interested but at the same time, skeptical. When I watched the marketing for this film, I noticed that it was trying its best to show off its humor, but very few, if any of the jokes, made me laugh. That said, I thought “IF” had potential. The overall design looked nice. The cast was stacked. And it was being directed by John Krasinski, whose directing resume is limited, but nevertheless impressive. I admire his work on the “Quiet Place” movies, especially the first one. That first film had 25 lines of voiced dialogue. That is pretty impressive in this day and age for something that has become rather mainstream. While it is not my favorite horror movie of the 2010s, it is arguably the most beautifully made. Krasinski has shown what he can do behind the camera so quickly and so effectively to the point where I was looking forward to just about anything he could be directing next. I did not think it would be something like “IF.” But I had an open mind.

The best thing I can say about “IF,” particularly when it comes to John Krasinski, is that this movie is probably his best showcase of his abilities as a writer. Unlike the first “A Quiet Place,” where he had help from Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, Krasinski wrote “IF” by himself. For the record, Krasinski also wrote “A Quiet Place Part II” solo, but looking back at the film, I did not attach myself to all the characters. There was a certain magic from the first installment that seemed to be missing, even though I did ultimately lean positive in my verdict. “IF” on the other hand is not only magical, it is likely going to end up being one of the best family movies of the year. Not only that, I was pretty surprised by how good this movie ended up being. Again, I was a bit skeptical. But I was nevertheless pleased by how this movie turned out.

I have talked about my love for Pixar on this blog before. To this day, their batting average is incredible. No pun intended. Thus far, the only film from the studio I would give a thumbs down to is “Elemental.” I know it is probably a hot take, but I stand by it. “IF” is not a Pixar movie. It is not even an animated movie. But there are a lot of elements to this project that remind me a lot of what Pixar does best. Taking unlikely beings and flawlessly humanizing them. Going for deep, emotional layers. Using one’s experience from the real world and letting them craft the best story possible out of it. This movie was inspired by John Krasinski’s time as a father and it clearly shows. It reveals what it is like to see your kids grow up. Yes, they’re maturing. Yes, they’re becoming one of a kind human beings, but there is also a loss of childlike innocence. Growing up, to some degree, is where plenty of people look at their dreams and put them aside for whatever reality lies in front of them. In fact, “IF” sort of reminds me of one of my favorite Pixar movies. Particularly, “Inside Out,” which had an imaginary friend character named Bing Bong. Much like “Inside Out,” “IF” does a really good job at highlighting the role that having an imaginary friend can play in a child’s life. But this film also makes an argument as to why we would also need them as adults. When we grow up, we might actually need them more than we ever did before. It would make us feel young. It would make us feel free. It would make us feel happy.

One of my favorite arcs in “IF” has to do with the Grandmother (left), played by Fiona Shaw. We learn a bit about her backstory and interests throughout the picture, including her love for dancing. The way this story plays out breaches into fantasy to some degree, but for this movie’s universe and rules, it absolutely works. This movie is very much about maintaining every bit of that youthful spark you’ve had since you were born and this particular arc is perhaps the movie’s most graceful and dazzling example of that. I loved this character, and Shaw owns the role. Great casting.

Speaking of great casting. This movie does a pretty good job on the IFs, or imaginary friends. These characters are primarily voice roles so we do not see any actors themselves. But I thought Phoebe Waller-Bridge was a particular standout as Blossom, a humanoid butterfly. Emily Blunt does a good job as the Unicorn. Christopher Meloni unleashes some of the film’s more comedic moments as Cosmo, a detective. And Steve Carell gives it his all as Blue, a furry purple monster.

If I had to pick one person I thought would be miscast, it would probably be Awkwafina as Bubble. I like of the concept of her character, which is just a bunch of bubbles that can reconstruct once popped. It’s pretty clever. But I think Awkwafina, despite her clearly not sleepwalking here, continues to show that she somewhat lacks a chameleon nature about her. From my experience, I feel even if Awkwafina is not playing the same character in one movie to the next, she’s riding that line, and she continues to ride that here. I like Awkwafina, I think she is charming in films like “The Farewell” and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings.” But is she the most disguisable, range-filled actor of her generation? If you are asking me, I would not think so. While we are on the negatives, I mentioned earlier that the movie had me turned off by the comedy shown in the marketing. There is one joke from the trailer revolving around Steve Carell’s Blue that honestly did not work for me. Specifically, the one where Bea is keeping Blue from saying “IFs.” It is about as awkward and as cringeworthy as I expected. But hey, at least this movie did not pull a “Madame Web” and straight up lie to me in the marketing. I thought the joke was odd in the trailer, and also odd in the movie. It feels great not being ripped off!

On that note, when it comes to the live action roles, everyone plays their part well. Cailey Fleming is well cast as the lead. John Krasinski is also doing his best in front of the camera as the Dad. And Ryan Reynolds holds his own as Cal. While this film is not likely going to warrant any high caliber acting awards from these people, Reynolds in particular gives a standout performance because it is a lot different than what I am used to seeing from him. Usually I am used to Reynolds giving portrayals of his characters that lean more on the hyperactive end of the spectrum. This is evident through his efforts in projects like “Deadpool,” “Free Guy,” and “Spirited” for example. If anything, Reynolds’ performance in “IF” reminds a bit of his time in “The Adam Project,” partially because both characters serve as mentor figures to the film’s protagonists. That said, Reynolds seems to bring a much calmer, down to earth presence in this movie. As someone who has seen some of Reynolds’ previous work, I am not used to him toning things down a bit here, but it gives me more respect for him as an actor. Not that I did not have respect for him already, but this project shows a bit of his range.

“IF” also stands out to me from a musical perspective. This film’s score is composed by Michael Giacchino, a composer whose work I admire from films like “The Incredibles,” “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” and “The Batman.” “IF” is one of his best scores yet. Because in every moment, it fits the vibe of the picture. It ranges in its nature from being innocent at one point, to straight up bombastic in another. It is kind of like if the theme for “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” had a baby with the score for something much more epic, like “How to Train Your Dragon.” While “Wall-E” might currently be my favorite score from Giacchino, “IF” could honestly compete with that film to the point where it becomes my new top dog from the maestro. I know this is a Paramount movie, so I sort of apologize for the lack of brand synergy, but this is the kind of score that I would dare to blast from my phone if I ever go to Disneyland and make a run for the castle. That is, if it were not crowded there… Nevertheless, there is something about this score that makes me want to reclaim my youth and go back to a simpler time. Giacchino outdid himself here and I will definitely be playing the music in my spare time, perhaps as I write my future reviews.

As mentioned, “IF” is likely going to be one of the year’s best family movies. It is that good. If you have not seen “IF,” make an effort to do so. It is a movie that I would recommend to absolutely anyone. Kids. Teens. Adults. Seniors. Anyone. If you have ever had a human experience, this movie is for you. That said, going to back to my love for “Inside Out,” this movie reminded me of another thought that seems to stick in my mind regarding that film. While kids can definitely watch “Inside Out,” it is hard to know how much kids are going to appreciate it when they are young. I think kids will like the film. It is vibrant, colorful, packed with surprisingly decent humor, and it is a fun adventure. But I think this is a film that will resonate more with adults. I saw this film in a packed theater a week before it officially came out. There were lots of kids, but also plenty of adults. There were instances of the movie where a good amount of people took tissues out. I could hear crying in the audience. And those tears were clearly from adults. This movie seems to have hit these people where they live. I have no idea what the ratio would be when it comes to comparing children who at one point had an imaginary friend as opposed to those who did not. But even if you can go on the record and say you never had an imaginary friend, there is probably something in this movie for you. I did not know what to expect from “IF.” That said, John Krasinski is a mighty fine storyteller. With his range, I cannot wait to see what he does next.

In the end, “IF” is an easy recommendation. Go see this now. Take your family. Take your friends. Take your lover. Go by yourself even! I did! Solo movie outings rule! “IF” is filled to the brim with stunning visuals, clever concepts, and a story that anyone can attach themselves to. There are certain movies that I look back on like “Kung Fu Panda” that I liked as a kid, but have grown to appreciate more as an adult using the experience I have taken with me as I grew up. I am going to be curious to know how today’s kids are going to look back on this movie in a decade or two from now. When you have phenomenal casting, a script that is better than it has any right being, and an overall look to the film that is stupendously easy on the eyes, there is not much else to ask for when it comes to my experience with “IF.” I am going to give “IF” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another family film. “The Garfield Movie!” Look forward to my thoughts on that coming soon! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” and “Young Woman and the Sea.” 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 “IF?” What did you think about it? Or, did you have an imaginary friend? I cannot say I ever imagined a friend from scratch if I recall correctly, but I can confirm throughout my life, I have imagined myself being friends with pre-established fictional characters or celebrities. Maybe it kind of shows a weakness in my imagination if you will. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Tarot (2024): A Stupid Horror Flick with Stupid People Playing Stupid Games and Winning Stupid Prizes

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Tarot” is directed by Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg and stars Harriet Slater (Pennyworth, Belgravia: The Next Chapter), Adain Bradley (Mr. Student Body President, The Bold and the Beautiful), Avantika Vandanapu (Spin, Mean Girls), Wolfgang Novogratz (The Half of It, Feel the Beat), Humberly González (Ginny & Georgia, In the Dark), Larsen Thompson (The Midnight Club, Pearl), Olwen Fouéré (The Tourist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and Jacob Batalon (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Let It Snow). This film is about a group of friends who unleash an unspeakable evil trapped within Tarot cards. With time not on their side, each person must do all they can to avoid certain death.

If you have never heard of the movie “Tarot,” you are most likely off the grid or refuse to use the Internet. Personally, I found out about “Tarot” through a movie trailer before watching something else in the theater. But that is one of the few ways you could have actually been made aware of this movie’s existence. This movie had a digital-only campaign. No TV spots. No billboards. I must say, on paper, I thought this was a ridiculous idea. Because without traditional spots or billboards, the movie and its studio just so happen to be potentially missing out on a wide audience. Lots of people watch TV, and lots of people drive on the highway. Turns out, I was wrong. Worldwide, this film has made more than $42 million at the box office so far against an $8 million budget. That box office total is more than “Abigail.” For the record, that movie cost $28 million including production and marketing when all is said and done.

Now about that trailer… I was not in love with it. If anything, “Tarot” looked like a January movie. It looked like a schlocky horror title with a disengaging story that the studio is simply going to dump into theaters because it has nowhere else to go. Only in this case, they somehow thought it was a good idea to release it in May.

And you know what? The most shocking thing happened during my screening… I cannot believe I’m saying this…

Bah, just kidding! This movie’s garbage!

The characters in this movie are not quite “Madame Web” bad, but each one of them feels like they are on a haphazard network TV show that never found its footing and is likely going to get canceled after one season. They’re not that well written, not that likable, and as much as the actors give their effort, it is not exactly shown on the screen.

Few things suck more in cinema than a horror movie that fails to deliver on scares. Thankfully, when it comes to a lack of scares, “Tarot” could be a lot worse. I will admit, it does get creative when it comes to how it goes about victimizing its characters. And the events in which each of characters finds themselves waltzing through happen to make sense based on everything that has been built up from the beginning. But the movie honestly could be a little scarier.

Now it has been about a month since I have seen “Tarot,” but time has proven that it is not on the movie’s side. “Tarot” is easily one of 2024’s most forgettable movies. If you were to ask me what this movie was about, I could tell you the basics where a bunch of people are at a cabin and play with Tarot cards, even if it is a ridiculous idea. I know a bunch of people are supposed to meet their fates from their actions. But if you were to ask me which character was who, what somebody’s name was, or some minor detail towards the climax, I’d probably go blank. My brain literally vomited the information the screen fed me into an imaginary trashcan as soon as the movie was over. That said, the deaths did not leave much of an impact, even if the process to get to them unleashed some creativity. We do not get enough time to get to know the characters in order to care about any of them. Maybe we get glimpses of their personality and flaws, but we do not know much about them other than them being college students. And the rundown of the movie itself is somewhat predictable. A bunch of people make an unreasonable choice, and that is followed by onslaught of blood, gore, and deaths.

If any other movie comes to mind when thinking of “Tarot,” it would probably be “Ouija.” It is a stupid movie where a bunch of stupid young people play a stupid game only to win stupid prizes. I have only seen the original “Ouija,” but never the sequel. That said, I hear the sequel is better. Maybe through some dumb luck we can have a future where this movie gets a sequel that is significantly more worthwhile than what we got here. But until then, if this movie comes out on DVD anytime soon, I think it will not take too long for it to meet its fate in the Walmart $5 bin. “Tarot” is probably not going to catch on in the same way “Ouija” did. After all, the latter made more than $100 million at the box office, but I think based on the limited budget this movie has, Sony and Screen Gems, to my surprise, were able to manufacture something that technically qualifies as a hit out of this.

But if you are looking for a good story, good characters, and good execution out of the movie’s promised concept, you might want to stay away from this. To my lack of surprise, the film’s directors… Yes, that’s directors, with an “s,” have never helmed a feature before. As far as I am concerned, both of them can only go up from here. In addition to their directing duties, Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg also wrote the movie together. I cannot say much about Halberg’s writing background, but having looked at Cohen’s resume, I will admit this is probably not the most infuriating screenplay he has done. Because back in 2022, he was credited for writing “Moonfall,” which I had as my #2 worst movie of the year. Apparently Cohen also wrote “The Expendables 4,” which Halberg happened to produce. I did not see it, but I cannot say I heard the greatest things about that project either. Unfortunately, “Tarot” is not much better.

In the end, “Tarot” is one of those movies that as soon as the credits showed up, my brain just incinerated any information connected to it that it could. It reminds of that feeling in school where you study for a test on something you could not give two craps about, and once it is over, you refuse to care about it until the final. You did it once, and you put it behind you. That’s that. “Tarot” is a generic movie with underdeveloped characters and not that many memorable scares. I will admit though, as someone who lives near Boston, used to take the T every day, and sometimes find himself angered by its blunders, there is one scene in this film that kind of connected with me. I will not give anything away, but I will let you see it for yourself. I am going to give “Tarot” a 3/10.

“Tarot” 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 John Krasinski’s “IF.” Spoiler alert, it is much better than this movie. Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “The Garfield Movie,” “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” and “Young Woman and the Sea.” 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 “Tarot?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “Ouija” or “Ouija: Origin of Evil?” Tell me your thoughts about those movies if you have seen them. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Fall Guy (2024): David Leitch’s Love Letter to Stuntwork

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Fall Guy” is directed by David Leitch (Bullet Train, Deadpool 2) and stars Ryan Gosling (Barbie, La La Land), Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer, Edge of Tomorrow), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Bullet Train), Hannah Waddingham (Ted Lasso, Sex Education), Teresa Palmer (The Choice, Point Break), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), and Winston Duke (Us, Black Panther). This film is inspired by a 1980s TV series of the same name and centers around a Hollywood stuntman named Colt Seavers who is tasked with finding the missing star of a film directed by his ex.

July 21st, 2023 to me will forever be known as one of the biggest days in the history of moviegoing. You have two high profile films opening on the same day, “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” both of which have high anticipation and dedicated audiences. Both films ended up making tons of money overtime with “Barbie” becoming the biggest film of the year and “Oppenheimer” earning more at the box office than any other biographical film in history. Now, less than a year later, a couple of the stars from those competing movies join forces for “The Fall Guy,” a project I was curious about for some time. You have “Barbie’s” Ryan Gosling, who I’d argue gave the best supporting performance of the past year. And you have “Oppenheimer’s” Emily Blunt, who also stood out in her role.

This leads to my first positive of the film. Gosling and Blunt’s characters, Colt and Jody, are a match made in Heaven. And I am not necessarily talking about their attachment to each other, or much they like each other, or how good they look together.

Although to be real, they do look pretty freaking good together…

In fact, the movie makes it clear that these two are not always on the best terms. But what I mean is that these two, even in moments where they clearly are not supposed to align with each other, have undeniable chemistry. Honestly, it is some of the best chemistry I have seen in a big budget movie in a while. I am not going to pretend that either one of these actors are giving performances equal to their “Barbenheimer” outings, but when it comes to “The Fall Guy,” these two deliver stellar portrayals of their respective characters, and when they are on screen together, it is simply put, magical.

There are a lot of stories out there in the realm of movies where the people behind the projects are expressing their passion for the craft. Steven Spielberg’s “The Fabelmans” does a good job at tributing filmmakers trying to get into the industry. Damien Chazelle’s “La La Land” is a salute to the dreams of stars, including hopeful actors. I even thought Kevin Smith’s “Clerks III” was a great encapsulation of what it is like to make a passion project. What it is like to be an auteur. What it is like to take on such a monumental effort of a film without realizing what it is you’re getting into. Similarly, “The Fall Guy” is clearly a love letter to stuntwork. The movie itself is about a stuntman, has tons of stunts in it, and it is directed by someone who has a history of overseeing stunts in film. David Leitch has helmed some of the biggest action movies in recent years like “Deadpool 2” and “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.” Before that, he was responsible for stunts in “The Matrix Reloaded,” “Underworld: Evolution,” “300,” “Tron: Legacy,” and “Jupiter Ascending.” On paper, if anybody was qualified to direct “The Fall Guy,” it would be David Leitch. In execution, the results are fantastic.

“The Fall Guy” is packed with one thrilling action sequence after another. Whether it is a simple moment where you have characters on foot, a high speed chase through the city, or a so-called fight in an apartment, everything in this movie had me glued to the screen. Even the moments where we just watch Colt Seavers doing his job is engaging as heck. One of the best scenes of the movie is where we see his character repeatedly set on fire. Not only does it showcase the dangers of his job, but again, this movie is a love letter to stunts, and it also showcases what the people making our movies go through for our entertainment. This movie showcases that in a way that is informative while also doubling as a standout scene.

One thing I always noticed in David Leitch’s movies is that at some point, there will be at least one big A-List celebrity cameo. In “Hobbs & Shaw,” the movie seamlessly finds a way to have Kevin Hart and Ryan Reynolds pop up for a scene. During my initial watch of “Bullet Train,” I found myself delightfully shocked to see the latter of those two actors appear in that film for a hot second. Without giving much away, the last moments of “The Fall Guy” has a cameo from a celebrity that I am sure many of you reading this would probably know. As far as cameos go, it is probably one of my favorites in recent years. I burst into pure laughter when this person showed up. Regarding who that person is, I will just let you find out for yourself.

“The Fall Guy” is one of those movies that is clearly going after a wide audience. If it sticks the landing, that is of course, a big fat win. And thankfully, it does. Perhaps the biggest compliment I can give “The Fall Guy” is that the movie presented itself in such a way to the point where my mom ended up going to the theater to check it out. Turns out, she had a great time. She is not an action movie person. But I must say that if you do not like action movies and are hesitating on checking this film out, I would hold those hesitations at the door and give the movie a shot anyway. Because this film is more than just action. It also does well in the humor department. I found myself laughing quite a bit. I also would say the film works well as a romance story. It does not feel overly cheesy, and as mentioned, I like the two leads enough to the point where I would not mind seeing them together in a relationship. With “The Fall Guy” going after a multitude of demographics, perhaps even the “Swiftie” crowd at one point, it is arguable that there is some noticeable potential for disappointment because of how many things the movie tries to shove in a single package. But somehow, everything flows naturally.

“The Fall Guy” is probably not going to win any Oscars. Not only because there is no such thing as a Best Stunts category. By the way, I was not surprised that the movie found a way to note this fact in the script. But on top of that, I would imagine “The Fall Guy” is not the kind of movie the Academy would hail as one of the year’s best. It could pick up a technical nomination or two. But I doubt it is going to get much more than that. But this is the kind of movie that I think is best watched with a group of people. The film is now available to stream at home, so you could gather some friends and watch it at your place. But if you want my recommendation, if “The Fall Guy” is playing in a theater near you, go see it there. The action is worth seeing on the big screen. The sound is incredible. And it is undoubtedly an immersive experience. Nothing beats watching Ryan Gosling speed through the city in a car with a dog who only understands commands in French. And it is even better on the big screen.

In the end, “The Fall Guy” is a rare flick that has something for everyone, and also one where those somethings exceed the bare minimum. “The Fall Guy” is a movie that I would honestly recommend to just about anyone looking for something to watch because if you are not an action junkie, I think this is nevertheless a fairly accessible title. It’s got comedy. It’s got romance. It’s got drama. It’s got all you can want in a movie. As far as mainstream titles go, this should have done a lot better at the box office than it did. Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt are excellent in the film. As for other standouts in the cast, I really enjoyed Hannah Waddingham as Gail, a producer on Jody’s film. If you do watch “The Fall Guy,” please stick around for the credits. There are some cool behind the scenes moments you might not want to miss. I am going to give “The Fall Guy” an 8/10.

“The Fall Guy” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! Coming soon, I will have reviews for “Tarot,” “IF,” “The Garfield Movie,” “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” and “Summer Camp.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Fall Guy?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could take one star from “Barbie” and one star from “Oppenheimer” and put them in a movie together? Which ones would you want and what would the movie be about? For me, I’d love to see Simu Liu and Florence Pugh do a movie together where they play love interests. I think they’d have good chemistry. Let me know your selections down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Challengers (2024): Luca Guadagnino Serves Up a Painfully Average Tennis Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Challengers” is directed by Luca Guadagnino (Call Me by Your Name, Bones and All) and stars Zendaya (Spider-Man: No Way Home, Euphoria), Josh O’Connor (The Crown, Hope Gap), and Mike Faist (West Side Story, Panic) in a story revolving around a tennis prodigy named Tashi Duncan and two ex-best friends named Patrick (O’Connor) and Art (Faist), both of whom expressed sexual interest in her. Years after they have met, Tashi is now married to Art, who must compete in an ATP Challenger tennis match against Patrick, a much less prominent figure in the sport.

There are no two words in marketing more accurate than “sex sells.” Let’s be real though. Much of “Challengers” revolves around tennis. I like tennis. I’ve played tennis. I watch tennis occasionally when it is on television. But I am willing to bet some of you reading this right now have probably seen this movie. And for all I know, maybe you like tennis too. But you probably went to this movie for another reason.

Admit it…

And if you did, I would not blame you. Sex sells. I have seen ads on TV promoting the film and they ended up using a review, which I unfortunately cannot find at the moment, but I swear this is true… The spot said the movie was so sexy it might just get you pregnant. Now THAT is the endorsement of the bloody century. Imagine one day you have a kid and they’re gonna ask you and your spouse, “Where do babies come from?” Your answer, “Challengers.”

This movie was a marketer’s dream. It had everything to sell a moviegoer. You have an experienced, Oscar-nominated filmmaker, specifically Luca Guadagnino, helming this picture. In the forefront, you have a star actor in Zendaya, who is hot right now off of “Dune Part Two.” On top of that, you’ve got romance, drama, and of course, sexuality. Let’s not forget about that. As a movie critic, I wanted to of course know how the movie is. But of course, a lot of the positive marks of the movie from other people tie directly to, perhaps unsurprisingly, its sex appeal. So I feel obligated to talk about that.

I am going to issue a hot take… This movie is not sexy. Maybe from a screenwriting perspective, there are layers where you could make something seductive or hot, but for my money, I do not see the appeal. If anything, the movie almost gets to that point in one scene or another, but cannot quite go all the way.

When it comes to judging “Challengers,” it is hard to say that my tastes align with the crowd. I honestly did not enjoy this movie. And much like the sexuality factor, there are elements of the movie itself that work for me. This movie is one of those stories that contains its ups and downs.

The biggest positive for me when it comes to “Challengers” is perhaps the most important aspect of the film, at least on screen, and that is the chemistry between the three leads. Zendaya, Josh O’Connor, and Mike Faist are all top tier in this film and I honestly would not mind them reuniting for another project if the opportunity were to strike. “Challengers” is at its best when these three are on screen at the same time. The scenes where all three of these characters are at their youngest and just getting to know each other make for some of the most genuine, human connections I have seen in recent film.

When it comes to the overall vibe of her performance, Zendaya rides a fine line between glamour and girl next door. While I have missed out on some of her career highlights including “Euphoria” and “The Greatest Showman,” based on what I have seen from her, Zendaya is a performer who frankly gets better with each role she takes on and “Challengers” could arguably be her best performance yet. The job of an actor is to make you believe that they could be someone they are not. In addition to Zendaya transforming into a tennis pro, she also plays the character through multiple ages. Granted, the timeline does not spread significantly far, it’s not like it’s twenty, thirty years, but I think Zendaya did a good job at encapsulating the character through multiple points of her life. I knew Zendaya was skilled, but I did not think she had that kind of talent in her. I am pleased to see her kill it in this role.

That said, I have to be real. I like the way the actors handle the material given to them. Although it does not mean that I enjoyed the material itself. If anything, the film is boring, and almost headache-inducing. I saw “Challengers” was playing in IMAX. In fact, I almost went to see it in IMAX. While it would have been cool to see the tennis scenes, including the thrilling moment where the camera is shown from the ball’s perspective in IMAX, I am glad I ended up seeing this in a standard theater because some of the music choices in “Challengers” got on my nerves. When it comes to music in film, it is rare for me to say that a song choice or a moment in the score feels out of place or broken. The film is chock full of electronic dance music, and it is honestly some of the most unbearable noise yours truly ever had the displeasure of witnessing in a movie theater. Especially considering how cranked up it sounds. It is honestly worse than some of the music in “Civil War,” and I thought that would be the low point in cinema this year from a musical perspective. Maybe my tastes do not align with the crowd or I need to go outside more and get some fresh air. Perhaps I am yelling at a cloud, but when that music blares, it reminds me of when people, sometimes justifiably, complain about the sound mixing in Christopher Nolan movies like “Dunkirk” and “Tenet.” I should note, I have sensitive ears, which I think is hilarious considering how often I go to the movies… Therefore, certain sounds are likely to irritate me more than other people. Maybe the music will work for you. But for me, “Challengers” is probably the worst film soundtrack I have heard in a long time.

I will not deny that there are things to like about “Challengers.” I have already gone on long enough about how much I enjoyed the performances. Technically, this movie gets creative with its cinematography. While I was not fully invested in the film, I will admit the last few seconds put a smile on my face to some degree. But there are so many detractors that keep this from being good in my book. A series of scenes that fail to keep me entertained. My inability to attach myself to the characters 100 percent of the time. Ungodly amounts of slow motion that honestly did not need to be there. And despite this movie boasting about how steamy it is in the marketing, I am honestly not buying what they are selling. If you were turned on by “Challengers,” you do you. But as I said before, I do not see the appeal.

In the end, “Challengers” was challenging to watch at times. Honestly, if you want a better tennis movie, also starring someone who played Spider-Man’s love interest, just go watch “Battle of the Sexes.” It’s a good story, it’s entertaining, and Emma Stone along with Steve Carell make for a solid leading duo. I remember “Challengers” was supposed to come out at the tail end of 2023, making it potentially a fierce competitor during the previous award season. Unfortunately, it was delayed due to the industry-related strikes. I was looking forward to “Challengers,” but this movie was not worth the wait. There are some notable positives regarding “Challengers,” but the negatives stick out like a sore thumb to me. If somebody ever brings up “Challengers” in a conversation, I am going to think of it as “the tennis movie with terrible music” as opposed to “the tennis movie where it has a really cool shot where you get to be the ball for a short period of time.” It is not a reality I am proud to be a part of, but in my reviews, it is better to be brutally honest than to make up a positive on the spot that does not feel genuine. I am going to give “Challengers” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Fall Guy.” I had a great time with the film and I cannot wait to share my thoughts with you guys! Also coming soon, I have reviews on the way for “Tarot,” “IF,” “The Garfield Movie,” and “I Saw the TV Glow.” 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 “Challengers?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite tennis movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Boy Kills World (2023): Bill Skarsgård Lets the Bodies Hit the Floor in This Adrenaline Rush of an Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Boy Kills World” is directed by Moritz Mohr (Akumi, Ronin 2035) and stars Bill Skarsgård (Malignant, It), Jessica Rothe (Mary + Jane, Happy Death Day), Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey, Good Behavior), Brett Gelman (Stranger Things, Fleabag), Isaiah Mustafa (It Chapter Two, Murder at Yellowstone City), Yahan Ruhian (Warrior, Bullet Train), Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Monkey Man), H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers, Archer), and Famke Janssen (X-Men, Taken). This film is set in a dystopian time and is about a deaf and mute person who is trained to become an instrument of death. Now he must use all that he knows to achieve revenge over the murder of his family.

If I were to make a top 10 most anticipated movies of 2024 list at the beginning of the year, there is a solid chance “Boy Kills World” probably would not have been on there. Why? Because I had no idea about it. But had I seen the marketing for it at the beginning of the year, I probably would have considered sliding it into one of the spots, or at least noting it as an honorable mention. “Boy Kills World” looked like a bloody good time. And if you put Bill Skarsgård, one of this generation’s great actors together with H. Jon Benjamin, one of this generation’s great voiceover artists, you may have a recipe for a winning combo. On paper, this sounds like my kind of movie. In execution, this is most certainly my kind of movie. It is like if “Deadpool” had a baby “John Wick: Chapter 4” and it just so happened to be set in a environment straight out of “The Hunger Games.” I am not even a huge “Hunger Games” fan, but my god, is this movie delicious…

“Boy Kills World” is as simple as can be when it comes to the premise. Basically, a guy has to survive against his enemies all to get to a specific person he needs to kill. But the way this movie goes about it is unbelievably satisfying. Technically speaking, this movie has a color palette that bridges a gap between grit and fantasy… Fluid camerawork that flawlessly showcases an endless series of incredible action sequences from start to finish… And on top of that, some surprisingly intricate and palatable production design. For a movie set in a dystopian future, I was pleasantly surprised to know how much pizazz said future has.

The costume design in this film is a bit of a standout to me. It is kind of all over the place in terms of color, design, and vibe. But the movie somehow makes all of those costumes feel consistent with one another. Each costume suits the characters’ personalities in addition to the personality of the movie itself.

Going back to the “Deadpool” meets “John Wick” comparison, this movie, much like those, involves our main character looking for a little payback in honor of those he loves. Also like both movies, our protagonist, in this case, Boy, is a mastermind when it comes to killing. The stellar choreography we see from him certainly adds to the thrills as well. And much like “John Wick: Chapter 4,” I found this movie to be very video game-esque. Every other moment, our protagonist has something new to fend off, and each time, it is done with a lovingly quick pace. The action not only looks great, but it is to some degree, nonstop. In fact, one could argue that this movie is more video game-like than “John Wick: Chapter 4,” because the main character does not speak. You ever play a video game like “The Legend of Zelda” or “Portal” where everyone has lines except for the main character? That’s what this movie reminds me of. Except in this case, unlike say Link from “The Legend of Zelda,” we actually get some context fed to us as to why Boy does not speak, and it works.

The closest we get to the main character speaking is H. Jon Benjamin being a guiding voice for our protagonist, and he does an excellent job all the way through. He has a lot of lines in this movie. While I sometimes complain about actors, particularly in voiceover roles, playing themselves like Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart practically did in “DC League of Super-Pets,” I am going to give H. Jon Benjamin a pass because there is an endless sense of energy in his performance. He is one of the best parts of this movie, and we do not even see him! On top of that, if you have never heard H. Jon Benjamin’s voice, turn on any episode of “Bob’s Burgers” right now because he is legendary. There is a saying in film that you should show instead of tell. That should always be the priority. But if you want to know how much I enjoyed this movie, I will remind you that H. Jon Benjamin’s “telling” is probably some of the coolest I have witnessed in cinematic history. He can make anything sound epic, and he is only helped by a dynamite script.

It only makes sense that someone like H. Jon Benjamin would have a voiceover role in this film, because not only does it feel like a video game, it has a lot of cartoony elements. Yes, the movie is live-action. But going back to the costumes, the movie rides a fine line with them to the point where they feel authentic, but fantasy-like. The violence is over the top, creative, and bloody to no end. A lot of the dialogue is expressive, comedic, and leans into an occasional digression here and there. Also, one of the key points of this movie is the Culling, which gathers 12 people who are going to be murdered on live television. The way the movie goes about handling something like this, to my surprise, makes me buy it. If you ever watch live sports, you would notice how riddled they are with commercialism and sponsorships. When we get to the Culling, we find out the assigned killers are dressed as breakfast cereal mascots. I do not want to see a future where we have deadly events like this. But if we ever get to that point, I can see a timeline where something like this happens. After all, people need to get paid, and big corporations need to sell cereal. It’s a win win. And in “Boy Kills World’s” favor, it adds to the humor of it all despite the movie being dark and gory. There is a fun side to it.

This movie is not only killer when it comes to style, but it slays when comes to substance. Story-wise, the movie does a good job at letting us get to know about not just our protagonist, but it also does the same when it comes to handling his sister. I thought she was a standout. From the marketing, this looks like a movie that was going to deliver on action, maybe let the story take a back seat. But no, I was pleasantly surprised by how invested I became in the plot, and the details of our protagonist. This movie has multiple winning combos. A revenge tale mixed with a dystopian vibe. One of this generation’s great physical actors mixed with one of this generation’s great voice talents. And on top of the sick action, you have an admirable story. What more could you want out of a movie like this?

In the end, it is a shame that “Boy Kills World” only made 3 million bucks at the box office, because it is one of my favorite films of the year so far. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite comedies of last year, “Bottoms,” not only because it delivers on laughs, but because it is set in a world that makes up an occasionally absurd set of rules that I can somehow buy into. If you want to see action that pushes the limits, this movie is for you. If you are not a fan of blood, violence, gore, or seeing people get killed in creative ways, maybe stay away from this one. But I am a sick person, so this movie was certainly for me. I am going to give “Boy Kills World” an 8/10.

“Boy Kills World” is unfortunately, not playing in many theaters right now. I checked for showtimes in Los Angeles and New York City and could not find anything. If you live where I live, in Massachusetts, there is one theater playing it in Rockport right now. Not sure where else it is playing. But if it is playing near you, see it. I endorse this film. Otherwise, you can preorder it right now to watch on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Challengers!” Stay tuned! Also, be sure to check out my reviews for “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” “IF,” and “The Garfield Movie.” 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 “Boy Kills World?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year you wish more people were aware of? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Civil War” is directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and stars Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man, Wimbledon), Wagner Moura (Elite Squad, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Pacific Rim: Uprising), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Dune, Lady Bird), Sonoya Mizuno (House of the Dragon, Devs), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder). This film is set in a dystopian future United States and centers around a group of people trying to make it to Washington, DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

As I have said on this blog before, some of my favorite directors working today include Christopher Nolan, Damien Chazelle, and Quentin Tarantino. Those are usually the big three that come to mind. Although one director I happen to admire somewhere down that list is Alex Garland. I love his directorial debut, “Ex Machina.” A film that has become increasingly relevant and captivating with age. Looking back at his sophomore directorial effort, “Annihilation,” I think that film is a slight step down. But there is a lot that works in that film. Visually, it is uniquely stunning. Natalie Portman does a great job in the lead role. As an experience, I found parts of the film trippy, intriguing, and even a little terrifying. Looking back, it also has one of the better musical scores of the past decade. As for Alex Garland’s next movie, “Men,” I cannot say I hated it… In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, it is a thumbs up. The actors do a good job. The color palette and overall aesthetic pops. But it felt like there was something missing from that film. It lacked an oomph of sorts. Naturally, I was curious about “Civil War.” Even with that in mind, I was not fully sure where to set my expectations. I thought this movie could go one way or another. It was either gonna stand out in such a positive way or in such a negative way. Turns out, it does both.

“Civil War” is not a movie I am going to recommend for everyone. If you are looking to have a good time, then maybe go see something else. I am not saying that “Civil War” is a terrible movie. It is far from being bad. But if anything, it reminds me of when I watched say “12 Years a Slave,” which to a certain degree, is not the happiest watch. The two movies are completely different in terms of plot and execution, but they deliver similar feelings of uneasiness. This movie made me feel genuinely uncomfortable. There are scenes in this film where I am tittering in my seat because the context of said scene is frankly disturbing to say the least. And honestly, and I mean this as a compliment in regards to “Civil War,” some of those scenes feel real. Or if not real, genuine enough to the point where I believe it could happen. This is especially true for one scene that has caught my attention since first watching the trailer.

If you saw the marketing for “Civil War,” you have probably seen Jesse Plemons on screen. He plays an ultranationalist and he owns the role to the tenth degree. I am sure Plemons is the nicest of guys in real life, but I would never want to come across this character in my travels. His portrayal of this character, simply known as “Soldier,” is delivered with subtlety, but even his calm mannerisms pack a punch. Whenever he is on screen, I am simply waiting to hear a pin drop, or anything else that would get me to jump out of my chair. I know I just saw “Abigail,” which by definition, is a horror movie prominently featuring a vampire. But I have to be real, compared to Abigail, Plemons’s character is nightmare fuel.

The strongest point for “Civil War” is how easy it is for me to feel like I’m in the middle of the action. I saw this movie in IMAX, and of the IMAX experiences I had, this is one of the more interesting ones. Because when I go to IMAX, I go for the thrills, the chills, and the excitement that, like the opening countdown suggests, CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGES and EARTH-SHATTERING SOUND can bring. This movie was almost too loud at times, but I also think that from Garland’s point of view, that was on purpose. The gunfire, explosions, and all the other ruckus of war were dialed up to an 11 to the point where I felt like I was there. Part of me assumed I was actually in the moment with Kirsten Dunst or whoever else was on screen at the time.

Kirsten Dunst plays Lee (left rear), a photojournalist. When it comes to defining a main character for “Civil War,” it seems as if there are limited solid options on the table. This movie is a controversy generator, but I will note that when it comes to selecting a main character, a photojournalist like Lee is a smart choice. Lee is active enough to the point where she is technically involved in the war, but her job basically keeps her from picking a side. Dunst is well cast in the role and delivers quite a performance. She does a good job.

The film may be called “Civil War,” but at its core, you could argue that this film is essentially a road trip movie. It is about a group of characters trying to get from point A to point B with the intentions of running into as few obstacles as possible. Along for the ride is Wagner Moura as Joel (right front), a Reuters journalist. Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (left front), a New York Times journalist and Lee’s mentor, and Cailee Spaeny as Jessie Cullen (right rear), an aspiring photographer. All of these actors fit into their roles nicely and have good chemistry. Casting-wise, this movie hit the jackpot.

As I said earlier, “Civil War” is a movie that stands out to me in both a positive and negative way. In addition to the balance between the thrills and all around discomfort this movie brings to the table, this notion also stands true for its technical aspects. I have already talked about how the sound does its job while also coming off as one of the movie’s drawbacks. But much like the sound, the film editing has my brain driving itself in circles.

There are points in this movie that had me thinking to myself that the editing is not just great, it is a contender to win an Oscar next year. In fact, the editing in this film, in addition to being perfectly paced, spectacularly highlights the power of photojournalism. This is something that is personal to me as someone who has spent the past year working in news, but also as someone who has taken journalism classes in college. But if I have one thing to say about the final edit, it is that there are a couple of music choices that are about out of left field. I think the film’s music, for the most part, works. But there are one or two instances where I found myself perplexed.

As for the film’s reflectiveness of our society, obviously there are moments that feel genuine enough that remind me of the world we live in today. But as for the idea that California and Texas could unite in war anytime soon, I found that to be a bit of a fantasy. At the same time though, I do not entirely care that they are in this war together. If this film felt more genuine than it is, chances are it would generate more controversy than it already unleashing amongst its audiences. I went to see a movie with a friend of mine in March. One of the trailers was for “Civil War.” Based on what she saw, she thought this movie should never have happened. Based on her words, I gathered she thought a movie like this could potentially be dangerous. Personally, I can see where she is coming from. This is why, again, if you are looking for are a looking for an escape, maybe this is not the movie for you. As for me, I think “Civil War” is one of the better films of the year. It is not quite on the level of say “Dune Part Two,” but much like that recent science fiction masterpiece, “Civil War” is technically powerful and delivers a one of a kind experience.

In the end, “Civil War” is not going to be a film I will end up watching on a Friday night anytime soon, but I am glad I checked it out. It is a film that is huge in scope, massive in world-building, but in terms of the overall premise, it is as simple as can be. The story is nothing more than just journeying from point A to B and making sure nobody dies along the way. The cast is well-rounded and marvelously put together. Jesse Plemons, despite not having an official credit, practically steals the show. Nick Offerman also does a good job as the President. I thought he fit the role perfectly. The film is not flawless. In fact, even the aspects of the movie that lean more positive have some glaring negatives attached. When it comes to ranking the Alex Garland movies, this is not as enthralling as “Ex Machina” or as exciting as “Annihilation,” but it is certainly more memorable than “Men.” I am going to give “Civil War” a 7/10.

“Civil War” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! While a lot of people ended up seeing “Civil War” when it came out, my next review on the other hand is for a film that practically no one bothered to watch. That my friends, is “Boy Kills World,” which only made a few million dollars at the box office. I am proud to be one of the lucky individuals that had the pleasure of watching this experience of a flick. I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it with you all. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Civil War?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Alex Garland movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Abigail (2024): Another Epic Win for the Directing Team Behind Ready or Not

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Abigail” is directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet, the same directing team behind the last two “Scream” films and “Ready or Not.” The film stars Melissa Barrera (Scream, Vida), Dan Stevens (Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Lisa Frankenstein), Will Catlett (Love Is, Black Lightning), Kevin Durand (The Strain, Dark Angel), Angus Cloud (Euphoria, Your Lucky Day), Alisha Weir (Matilda the Musical, Fia’s Fairies), and Giancarlo Esposito (Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, Breaking Bad). This film is mostly set in a house where a group of criminals who kidnapped the ballerina daughter of a powerful underworld figure come to the realization that there is more to this girl than meets the eye.

Before we begin this review, I want to remind everyone that if I had to name a favorite horror movie of the past five years, chances are my answer would be “Ready or Not,” helmed by this film’s directing duo, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet. What made the film work for me is that in addition to all of the blood, gore, and occasional violence, there was a sense of unease in every scene. And part of it is because of how the script tends to handle Samara Weaving’s character, Grace. Because her situation makes her the outlier amongst a sea of rich, snobby monsters. Specifically, the one where she must win a game of hide and seek to avoid getting killed by recently mentioned rich, snobby monsters.

This time around, Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet are helming a story that comes off as an antithesis of sorts to the “Ready or Not” structure. But it does not mean there are not similarities between the two titles. For one thing, both movies slap. Truthfully, “Abigail” might end up being one of my favorite movies this year. I can say this is some of the most fun I have had at the movies in months. If you are looking for something that will make you laugh, grab your attention, and question everything that is going on, “Abigail” might be a great watch for you.

What makes “Abigail” different from “Ready or Not?” For one thing, whereas “Ready or Not” is a tale of one against many, “Abigail” is a tale of many against one. Also, in “Abigail,” we tend to know more about our protagonists’ history of rebelling and breaking the law. “Ready or Not’s” Grace, as far as the movie can suggest, does not really have much of a criminal history. It is never highlighted, therefore I would have to assume if she did have one, it is not that heavy or important. In other words, Grace seems like a good egg. Much of the movie dives into these characters’ backstories and I would have to say the way they go about it had me engaged. Sometimes, the movie lingers too long on the backstories, in fact, it almost lingers long enough that at times, it had me wondering when exactly the movie is going to get into gear, but it does not change my overall attachment to the characters themselves.

By the way, the cast for this film is quite good. The film is marvelously led by Melissa Barrera, who kills it as the character of Joey. Alongside her, you of course have Kathryn Newton, who is becoming a bit of scream queen now with this movie on her resume in addition to “Lisa Frankenstein” and “Freaky,” both of which I enjoyed. There’s Giancarlo Esposito, who I’ve particularly enjoyed in “The Mandalorian.” I am glad to see him here. This movie is also likely going to introduce a fresh young talent to the world, Alisha Weir.

While she does not have a ton of credits just yet, I have a strong feeling that her performance in “Abigail” as the title character is going to change that. Weir plays a centuries old vampire who takes the form of a 12 year old girl. Oh, and she’s also a ballerina, because why not?… I love this movie. This role gives Weir plenty to bring to the table in terms of her delivery and her physicality. There is always this sense of unpredictability when watching this character. You just never know what she is going to say, what she is going to do, who exactly she is going to kill. Abigail is a beautifully unhinged mastermind of a 12 year old girl. While M3gan is probably going to end up being the more popular “dancing horror villain” by the end of this decade, I think I have a greater fondness for the Abigail character for how much the movie successfully handles its cute but not cuddly approach with her.

Of course, this movie is bloody and gory to the tenth degree. That should not come as much of a surprise. But even with that in mind, part of me could not believe just how much blood and gore this movie delivered at times. But again, I should have seen this coming from the team who did “Ready or Not.” A movie featuring some of the bloodiest explosions of all time. The movie just gets more beautifully disgusting as it goes, then when it hits the climax, oh boy, is it glorious! And much like this duo’s 2019 masterpiece, this film successfully blends horror and comedy to a perfect degree. This movie is scary. Not quite as scary as “Ready or Not,” I would say the terror itself is a bit on the lighter side in certain moments. But the movie is also very clever on the jokes. There are times where I found myself laughing hard. You could almost put this horror movie in a camp category. But the reality is that as I watched this film, every moment felt like it belonged in a story of its kind. There are campy, abnormal moments. But even those felt like moments that I could buy into. This movie made me convinced that in its world, a ballerina vampire like Abigail could exist. The movie clearly plays her up, gives her some over the top lines and exchanges with her fellow castmates, but for some reason, all of it clicks.

If you saw the trailer for “Abigail” and thought that maybe they should have saved the big hook regarding the title character for the movie itself, I kind of get where you are coming from, but as far as I am concerned, that is sort of what sold me from the start. As far as WHAT THEY DO with that hook, I can tell you it makes the movie worth your time and money. I had a great time with this movie, and if you like blood and gore, I am certain you will too.

In the end, “Abigail” is a ton of fun. It kind of takes me back to 2022, because in that year, I just so happened to stumble upon one great horror film after another. From “The Black Phone” to “Smile” to “Pearl.” “Abigail” is on that level for me. After seeing two bloody fantastic original horror titles from Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet, it only makes more excited for what other tricks they have up their sleeve. Between a newlywed playing hide and seek against her in-laws who are part of a so-called gaming dominion and now a bunch of criminals trying to keep a ballerina vampire at bay, these two are onto something with taking crazy concepts and unleashing their best possible outcome. After seeing “Ready or Not” and now “Abigail,” maybe I will go back and give their “Scream” movies a shot. Who knows? I am going to give “Abigail” an 8/10.

“Abigail” 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 “Civil War,” which so far, is one of the year’s most talked about films. Why not have one more voice in the conversation? Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “Boy Kills World,” “Challengers,” “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” and “IF.” 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 “Abigail?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Ready or Not?” If not, what are you doing with your life? Let me know your thoughts on the movie if you have seen it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Monkey Man (2024): Not Quite Bananas Enough for This Guy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Monkey Man” is directed by Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel) who also stars in the film as Kid. The film’s cast also features Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Maleficent), Pitobash (I Am Kalam, Shor in the City), Vipin Sharma (Taare Zameen Par, Paatal Lok), Sikander Kher (Woodstock Villa, Players), Adithi Kalkunte (Mumbai Diaries, Hotel Mumbai), Sobhita Dhulipala (Made in Heaven, The Night Manger), Ashwini Kalsekar (Jodha Akbar, Kasamh Se), Makarand Deshpande (Dandupalya, Hanan), Jatin Malik, and Zakir Hussain (Heat and Dust, Saaz). This film is about a man who tries to achieve revenge against corrupt leaders who killed his mother and continue to victimize people beneath them.

I first heard about “Monkey Man” just a couple months before its release. What made me really excited for this film is the people behind it. I cannot pretend I know every single name attached to this film, including the incredibly stacked cast I just mentioned in the beginning. But I have a soft spot for Dev Patel as a performer. One of my favorite films of the late 2000s is “Slumdog Millionaire,” where he plays the gripping lead role of Jamal. I believed every second of his performance. I think he is a remarkable talent. Behind the scenes, I did not know what to expect, but I know Patel has plenty of experience in the industry in general, so maybe that could translate to a solid directorial effort with this movie. Prior to releasing this film, he directed two shorts, neither of which I have seen, making “Monkey Man” his feature-length debut. We all have to start somewhere, so maybe I could trust Patel.

That said, I know one guy who probably does trust Patel, and that is none other than “Get Out” director Jordan Peele. The film was originally slated to release on Netflix. But with Peele’s motivation to promote the film and put it under his Monkeypaw Productions label, the film ended up going to theaters. Was the switch worth it? Judging by this movie’s wild action scenes, admirable setpieces, and compelling drama, I would say to some degree you could say it was. But I also feel like there is something missing.

I am not going to lie, this movie bored me in the first half. It took me forever to become totally engaged with what I was watching, which sucks because I like Dev Patel as the lead role and he is clearly pouring his heart and soul into this project. Said heart and soul is most certainly shown in the film’s latter half, which I found more exciting. This movie does have some hypnotizing fight scenes. There is one action sequence in a kitchen that is just as riveting as the trailer promised. And it is held together beautifully by Patel’s sensation of a lead performance. I have not seen all of his work, but this makes me want to go back and watch more of it. His portrayal of Kid very much delivers an attractive roughness to it that feels akin to listening to a hard rock or heavy metal song.

I am not going to pretend every action scene was a standout, but in terms of immersion, the movie sometimes does a good job at putting you in the middle of everything. And I say that despite this movie’s use of shaky cam, which I can find to be a bit of a gimmick. When it comes to my action movies, I will usually prefer them to have more still shots like in “John Wick,” but this movie’s use of shaky was honestly not the worst I have seen. Again, going back to the scene in the kitchen, I honestly felt like I was watching something out of “Tenet,” but with a different kind of intensity. I was waiting for Dev Patel to say “I ordered my hot sauce an hour ago.”

“Monkey Man” is one of the harder movies I had to judge. Partially because I am not of the majority when it comes to my opinion. Both the critic and audience scores are sitting in the 80s on Rotten Tomatoes as of writing this. I am not saying the movie is outright horrible, but the best phrase that I can use to describe this movie is that it is “beautifully forgettable.” The camerawork is not perfect, but a lot of the scenery pops. The shot of Dev Patel inside the open elevator is going to continue to be ingrained in my memory for some time. The color grading is splendidly rugged. The action definitely has its moments. Every actor comes off as if they are giving a hundred and ten percent. Dev Patel is clearly firing on all cylinders in front of and behind the camera. Having seen his efforts here, I hope he continues directing. I also hope he continues writing. Is this the best start for Patel? I would not say that. But his style and approach to filmmaking is one I would like to continue to explore should he decide to helm another project in the future.

In a world of sequels, reboots, and remakes, it is nice to see movies like this where people have a singular vision. Granted, I am not denying there are lots of original movies being made. But even with that in mind, it is cool to see something like this on the big screen. Even if there are familiar elements or beats that I recognize from other movies, the way some of those elements are handled here feel unique to some degree.

While this movie has its differences from “John Wick,” most notably the way action scenes are shot, there are some similarities to point out as well. Both films are quite violent. This movie takes it up to an 11 sometimes. But one of the problems I have with “John Wick” is that sometimes the plot takes a bit of a backseat. I feel the same can be said for “Monkey Man,” which has a good idea for a story, and there are parts of it I liked. At the same time, if that first half were just slightly more interesting, maybe this movie would earn a better score. I did not find myself clicking with every character or situation in the way I wanted to. When I look at “Monkey Man,” I seem to carry a deeper fascination with the lore as opposed to the story itself if that makes any sense. But for me, I am probably looking for a little bit more to satisfy my appetite than what I got here.

In the end, “Monkey Man” is not a movie I would watch a second time. It is not even one I particularly would give a thumbs up to. But weirdly enough, I am glad I saw it simply because I think Dev Patel has potential as a feature film director. There are parts of this movie that work. If you are looking for good action scenes and that is all you want, then maybe this would be a movie for you. But for whatever reason, it was not for me. My one hope is that if Dev Patel has a writing credit next time around, which in this case he shares with a couple other people, it is for a script that is more engaging than what we got here. That said, having seen this movie, I can say that if I read some of these ideas on paper, I would be sold in an instant. But I think when it comes to bringing those ideas to the screen, that is a different story. Maybe I would watch it again as background noise. Maybe I’ll look up one of the action scenes on YouTube. But I cannot say I am going to actively seek this movie to watch on a Friday night when I have nothing else to do. I am going to give “Monkey Man” a 5/10.

“Monkey Man” is now playing in theaters. It is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror movie “Abigail.” I have been DYING to talk about this flick for a long time. I saw it last month, and could not stop thinking about it since. Look forward to my thoughts coming soon. 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 “Monkey Man?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Dev Patel performance? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!