“Weapons” is directed by Zach Cregger, who also directed the brilliant 2022 horror flick “Barbarian,” and stars Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Julia Garner (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Ozark), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story, Cocaine Bear), Austin Abrams (This Is Us, The Walking Dead), Cary Christopher (Days of Our Lives, The Rookie), Toby Huss (The Adventures of Pete & Pete, King of the Hill), Benedict Wong (Doctor Strange, Annihilation), and Amy Madigan (Uncle Buck, Gone Baby Gone). In this film, several children wake up at 2:17 a.m. and disappear. Now it is up to a community to come together to figure out why these children vanished.
While not my favorite film of 2022, Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” left me gobsmacked. It is genuinely one of the cleverest horror screenplays I had the privilege of seeing come to life. That said, I really was not sure what his future would hold when it comes to filmmaking.
By the way, where’s the “Barbarian” Blu-ray? Come on, Disney! I thought you wanted my money!
I was not sure what to think going into “Weapons,” partially because I missed out on much of the marketing. I knew this film was coming out. I had people in my circles who were stoked to see it. But I did not know what I would think of it. Then the week of its release, I watched the trailer for the first time. If I were a higher-up for a studio and someone pitched me this film in an elevator, I would probably follow that person out, needing to know more. This is an incredible idea that has translated into quite a good movie.
“Weapons” sucked me in from minute one. This movie only had one chance to make a first impression, and as soon as it started, I figured I was going to get something of the nature of an epic bedtime story. The movie starts off with narration from a child, and I thought having a child narrate was smart partially because of the subject matter, but also because it makes what’s being told much more mysterious and chilling. If an adult were narrating this, I might have more trouble buying it because the subject matter dives into a certain degree of fantasy. But it is perfect the way it is.
The film contains an unbelievable cast, led with excellence by Julia Garner. Safe to say, she is having quite a year for herself between this film and “Fantastic Four.” She might be the star of the summer, and while she was good in “Fantastic Four,” this film allows her to unleash much more of her chops. While she may not have as high of a profile as some of her co-stars such as Josh Brolin or perhaps even Benedict Wong, this film put her on the map for me. I would like to see her in more movies going forward.
“Weapons” is one of the freshest films of the year. Though I will admit, like another highly rated horror film from earlier this year, “Sinners,” I might have to be a party pooper and say “Weapons” is probably not going to end up amongst my favorite films when I do my countdown at the end of 2025. The film has problems and I have the balls to talk about them. There is a concept in this film involving people eating soup. This is really hard to dive into without giving much away, but I’ll give it my best shot. For those who have seen the movie, you likely know what I am talking about. My biggest question, how do the people eating the soup, one, swallow it, and two, digest it? The people eating the soup all have something in common, and that similarity is boggling my mind as to whether they are actually able to eat. I should probably stay calm about this issue. But I am conflicted as to whether it really makes sense.
One of the things I loved about Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” is how it successfully blended multiple key perspectives without having the end result feel convoluted or jarring. “Weapons” does not do exactly the same thing, but the film commits to something similar. “Weapons” is much heavier in its storytelling. It combines a multitude of perspectives as a large cast takes in the same event playing in front of their eyes in different ways. Some of these perspectives are handled better than others. A lot of these perspectives are blended nicely, but sometimes it is a little unsatisfying to have the moment play out multiple times. The film itself is finely edited, but every once in a while it does feel a little repetitive.
“Weapons” falls into the horror genre, and it does the number one job these movies are supposed to accomplish, delivering on the scares. When I say that, it should be made clear that I would not call “Weapons” terrifying. If anything, it is more tense than it is scary. I am not going to pretend that this film goes over the top with its scares, but it does not mean it does not fail when it comes to the creeps.
The film is also, at times, surprisingly hilarious. I can probably see some of the comedy being a distraction for some people considering quite a bit of the narrative comes off as serious. But this movie has a knack for delivering naturally funny moments. I went to see this film with a small crowd and I was delighted to see quite a few people other than myself letting out a few laughs.
While the movie does have some bumps in the road, I have to admit that the ending is beyond satisfying. It is one of my favorite scenes of the year. Not only does it do a good job at tying all the loose ends but it is simply one of the most well directed scenes in cinema I can recall seeing recently. Everyone on camera gives it their all. There is sometimes a point of view shot that made me feel like I was in the middle of the scene. The ending is a rollercoaster ride worth seeing on the big screen, much like the film as a whole.
In the end, “Weapons” is another decent outing from Zach Cregger. They say you are only as good as your last project, and thankfully, Cregger’s last couple of projects have me looking forward to whatever he has up his sleeve next. The cast of the film unleashes a ton of talent and they all have a great script that does them favors. The film is endlessly intriguing and well-paced despite some minor flaws. Will I watch “Weapons” again? It’s within the realm of possibility. I am in no rush, frankly, but if a friend were at my place and they wanted to put it on, I would not say no. This is a solid flick. I am going to give “Weapons” a 7/10.
“Weapons” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freakier Friday!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Nobody 2,” “Honey Don’t!”, and “Eden.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, be sure to like the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Weapons?” What did you think about it? Or, which Zach Cregger movie did you like more? “Barbarian” or “Weapons?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Oh, Hi!” is directed by Sophie Brooks and stars Molly Gordon (The Bear, Animal Kingdom), Logan Lerman (Fury, The Hunters), Geraldine Viswanathan (Thunderbolts*, Blockers), and John Reynolds (Search Party, Stranger Things). This film is about a couple who go on their first romantic getaway, only for it to go awry in an unexpected way.
I saw “Oh, Hi!” as part of a double feature. I do not usually partake in double features. In fact, when many people were participating in the infamous “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” trend back in 2023, I saw “Oppenheimer” opening weekend, but waited on “Barbie” for a couple weeks. That said, because of my schedule over one particular weekend, I saw “Oh, Hi!” just minutes after finishing Micahel Shanks’ solid directorial debut “Together.” As I was waiting to watch both movies, I was thinking “Oh, Hi!” could be a nice palette cleanser after some body horror shenanigans, kind of like “Barbie” would have been had I watched it right after “Oppenheimer…” Boy was I wrong.
I often watch movies with my grandma, and this is one I am kind of glad we did not watch together. For the record, the film is quite good. But keep in mind, it is a dark comedy that is probably best watched with, or without, certain people.
I skipped most of the marketing for “Oh, Hi!”, other than catching a random spot on social media every once in a while, so when this film got to the core of the story, I was rather surprised by where it was going. Conceptually, this is a great idea for a movie. The thought of trapping someone to a bed to test romantic compatibility is undoubtedly dark, but the movie handles this narrative with excellence.
This sounds unbelievably stereotypical as a straight white male, but romcoms are not my first choice when it comes to movies. It does not mean they are impossible to enjoy, because “Oh, Hi!” is a blast. It is a romcom worthy of its title. The film is romantic and comedic. I very much felt the spark between its two leads while also having plenty of laughs. This is neither the most romantic or funny movie I have seen, but when it comes to both of those adjectives, I would be lying to say they do not apply to this film. The movie does not hold back on its story either. It is a story that is not only relatable, but does everything to keep you engaged. As the film reached its final ten, fifteen minutes, I was on the edge of my seat.
Much of what makes “Oh, Hi!” work so well is the cast. At the top you have Molly Gordon and Logan Lerman as Iris and Isaac, a completely admirable couple, if you want to call them that. Right below them is Geraldine Viswanathan and John Reynolds as Max (right) and Kenny (left). I was pleasantly surprised to find David Cross make an appearance in the film. He does not play a significant role in the story, but he is charming and funny. In fact, everyone in the film is charming and funny. They all play off each other perfectly. Props to casting, each actor feels well placed in their role.
There is a saying that every story is only as good as its villain. The antagonist of “Oh, Hi!” is by no means evil. There are no world-ending matters in a movie like this.
In fact, while Isaac (left) is most likely “the” antagonist of this film, it does not suggest that Iris (right) is a perfect individual herself. She ends up making some nearly indefensible, dark decisions despite her best intentions. That said, it does not change the fact that both characters are likable.
What makes Isaac in particular likable is his relatability. The film seems to address a common issue that people have in relationships, particularly commitment. The idea of committing to being with someone else for the rest of your life is one of the most daunting decisions you can make. The idea of taking steps in a relationship is scary. The idea of getting married is scary. The idea of being with someone else every day is scary. Nobody knows what the future has in store.
That said, having seen “Oh, Hi!”, I recognize that Isaac is kind of a fool. The way he addresses that he is not looking to be in relationship is so out of the blue to the point where he comes off as a jerk. And if he is not a jerk, he is most certainly stupid. While Isaac is relatable, it is no surprise the script does not always take his side. That said, it is also easy to root for him, especially considering he is tied to a bed for much of the runtime. The movie even points out despite Iris’ best intentions, she is technically kidnapping Isaac. His character is a solid representation of someone who would prefer to keep things casual, and is possibly afraid of taking things to the next level.
Overall, the relationship between Iris and Isaac is beautifully complex. The two seem to like each other and happen to be cute together. But they seem to have different goals in mind. One is in it for the romance, the other seems to be enjoying a short-lived fling. The film may as well be hinting that Isaac cares more about sex than anything else. The two seem to have failed to communicate their wants and needs before taking things further, therefore leading to the movie’s main incident. Either that, or it is possible that Isaac did what he could to impress Iris just to get into bed with her. The movie leaves a little room for interpretation and I appreciate that. If anything that matches the real-life complication of relationships.
Again, the end of this film is fantastic. I think a number of you could predict what happens towards the conclusion as the movie goes along, but it feels earned. The moments leading up to it are sometimes goofy, even for a romantic comedy like this one. But I can forgive it somewhat. If you are looking for a super funny film to watch with a great lead couple, then give “Oh, Hi!” a chance. It deserves some love.
In the end, “Oh, Hi!” came out of nowhere for me, but I ended up loving it. It is a romcom that is by no means disposable. It is a film that made me laugh, and then think. “Oh, Hi!” features an incredible cast of characters, well-written dialogue, and an ending that is truly satisfying. Romcoms are not my genre, but this one in particular stands out to me. I am going to give “Oh, Hi!” an 8/10.
“Oh, Hi!” 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 “Weapons.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!”. 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 “Oh, Hi!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you really enjoyed from a genre you typically could not give two craps about? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Together” is directed by Michael Shanks and this is his first feature film. This movie stars Dave Franco (The Disaster Artist, Neighbors), Alison Brie (The Disaster Artist, Freelance), and Damon Herriman (Flesh and Bone, Justified). The film is about a couple who move out of the city and into the country, where new lives and an unnatural force waits for them.
I often talk about my love for the distribution company A24 and its long list of excellent, one of a kind titles. Although if A24 had a close cousin, it would be Neon. I have not caught all of Neon’s films, but most of the ones I have seen are excellent. “Colossal” is one of my favorite films of the 2010s. ”Anora” ended up amongst my top movies of 2024. Neon even made history as the North American distributor for “Parasite,” with the film becoming the first made outside the U.S. to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. While I was not expecting “Together” to be the next Best Picture frontrunner, I was intrigued by the film mostly due to its concept.
The film is, fittingly, titled “Together” because it mainly revolves around a couple who quite literally become attached to each other. Of course, the two love one another, but on top of that, their bodies literally combine at times. The idea is just gross enough to the point where I need to know more. This film has a little bit of what I was expecting through its scare factor, though I am not going to pretend that it made my skin crawl. What I did not see coming is how deep down the rabbit hole the film would take me through its dialogue. I do not want to give much detail away, but when the story gets to a point where the characters discuss Zeus, I was compelled to know how the rest of the movie would go. From a more straightforward perspective, a lot of the back and forth between Dave Franco and Alison Brie is pristine.
Part of why Dave Franco and Alison Brie work so well as Tim and Millie is the fact that the two are a real life couple. I sometimes get nervous when two people who are related in some capacity work on a film together, but Franco and Brie are an exception. This is not their first film together. They were also in “The Little Hours” as well as “The Disaster Artist,” But the difference between those projects and “Together” is that their relationship takes center stage and the supporting cast is incredibly limited. After all, this film is set in the middle of nowhere.
“Together” is a delightfully deranged commentary on how human beings tend to survive based on connection. We are smart, or perhaps more accurately, stupid enough to be able to work and live on our own to some extent. But this film shows humans are ultimately co-dependent. Much of the film is about a couple, and the two seem to work at their best when they are by each other’s side. We see Tim and Millie deal with some unusual obstacles, but we also get to know some of their more traditional setbacks such as an inability to drive or cook. The film is uniquely romantic. It is by no means sweet. But between the leads’ fantastic chemistry and their characters’ commitment to bettering each other even in the most dire of situations, it kind of made me believe that “soul mates” could be real. “Together” is not a movie for all audiences, but if you and your partner like horror and are in the mood for something dark, this is a good date flick.
That said, the film does have problems. Going back to what I said about the scares, the film was not as terrifying as I was expecting it to be. The film has some scares, but they felt tamer than what I thought a film of this caliber would deliver. Personally, if you were to ask me which film from this year I would recommend based on scares alone, I would point you to “Bring Her Back.”
Also, there is a scene set in a school classroom where a young girl draws a picture of two dogs attached to each other and presents it to Millie before she leaves. I get what that picture is referencing, but I thought it did not add much to the movie. Although as the film itself progresses, it does a good job when it comes to callbacks and plot devices.
Despite its flaws, I am more than impressed with the turnout of the final product. There are a multitude of creative concepts and scenes. The film is timed and paced perfectly. Never once did I have the urge to fall asleep. This is Michael Shanks’ first feature film. Shanks has some prior production experience with shorts, but I think he has enormous potential should he continue down the path of making features. You can tell that each filmmaker gives it their all with each project they take on, but Shanks’ passion for filmmaking is clear as crystal with how he handles this movie. The screenplay could be scarier, but I acknowledge my claim is completely subjective. When it comes to the structure, pace, lore, and characterization, this film sings. This is far from my favorite film of the year, but Shanks did for me this year what Takashi Yamazaki did for me back when “Godzilla Minus One” came out. If Shanks has a new movie coming out, I hope to be first in line to see it. I am eager to see how Shanks’ sophomore outing turns out should he continue making features.
Without spoilers, I also like how the film ends. It is a fitting conclusion that references an earlier point in the film. It took me a second to realize what was happening, but when my brain connected the dots, I thought it was a neat way to address what was previously established.
In the end, “Together” is a solid film to watch alone, with the love of your life, or even someone to whom you are physically attached. Again, “Together” is not the scariest film I have seen this year, but it is one that I would say has potential to make certain groups of people think they are watching something that will haunt their nightmares. If you need any reason to watch this movie, it is because of how well written and portrayed the main couple happens to be. Dave Franco and Alison Brie are perfectly cast and I believed every scene between them. “Together” wastes no time and had me intrigued from start to finish. I am going to give “Together” a 7/10.
“Together” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Oh, Hi!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!.” 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 “Together?” What did you think about it? Or, is there a real life couple you would like to see star as an on-screen couple in a feature film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Smurfs” is directed by Chris Miller (Madagascar, Shrek the Third) and stars Rihanna (Home, Ocean’s 8), James Corden (The Emoji Movie, Cats), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), JP Karliak (X-Men ’97, New Looney Tunes), Daniel Levy (Schitt’s Creek, Happiest Season), Amy Sedaris (The Mandalorian, Clerks III), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Win Ben Stein’s Money), Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, Gifted), Nick Kroll (Big Mouth, Sausage Party), Hannah Waddingham (The Garfield Movie, Ted Lasso), Alex Winter (Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Grand Piano), Maya Erskine (PEN15, Blue Eye Samurai), Kurt Russell (The Thing, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2), and John Goodman (Revenge of the Nerds, The Big Lebowski). This film centers around its titular blue creatures who go on a mission to save Papa Smurf from evil wizards Razamel and Gargamel.
I hate using the term “kids movie,” mainly because it sounds like an insult towards certain people who watch those kinds of flicks. It is kind of like the term “chick flick,” as if a guy cannot watch films like “Easy A” and have a good time. That film is a blast, and I, a straight white male, fully endorse it. That said, having now seen “Smurfs,” I do not think it is a movie for anybody. Not even children.
This is not to suggest the film is inappropriate for kids. But if you were to ask me to recommend a movie for children, “Smurfs” would be the one I would recommend as a punishment. Forget the time out corner! Forget the extra chores! Forget the soap! Putting on “Smurfs” is the ultimate tool for any disciplinarian!
I saw “Smurfs” in a nearly full theater containing tons of families. Almost nobody uttered a sound during the film. Not the parents, not the children, no one. I actually chuckled once, but being the dark soul that I am, my chuckle was towards the fact that a particular character opted to sacrifice themself. One could argue that part of why I was laughing at this joke was that I wanted the characters to die so the movie could end.
It reminded me of “Borderlands” when Claptrap repeatedly gets shot. Spoiler alert, he ends up surviving! But at the time, that scene gave me a dose of optimism, because it hinted there was a chance that the film’s most annoying character could be left out of the picture.
In the case of “Smurfs,” my singular chuckle was not directed at the film’s most annoying character, but my point stands.
“Smurfs” is chock-full of well-known talent. You have Nick Offerman, John Goodman, Natasha Lyonne, Sandra Oh, even Kurt Russell! These are skilled actors, but there is not much for them to do in this film other than read some of the most predictable, unfunny lines in Hollywood movie history. There are a few lines in this film where I was trying to predict what line would succeed it, what joke would flourish as a result. It goes for the obvious joke time and time and time and time again. It is so annoying and makes for something absolutely uninspired. With these recently mentioned big name actors, you might wonder who has top billing. It is none of these people! Shocking, I know. Instead, that honor goes to Rihanna.
I am not surprised that Rihanna has top billing. She has an impact on popular culture. That said, her music is not for me. I cannot name a single song of hers that I genuinely love. But this movie is Rihanna’s not just in the sense that she plays one of the core characters, but it is also hers through the music. Several of Rihanna’s hits make it into the soundtrack. If you are a fan of Rihanna, you will probably have more fun listening to these songs by themselves. That said, Rihanna does have an original song featured in the film, particularly during the credits, but at times, it is almost headache-inducing. By the end of this film, I truly wanted Rihanna, to “please, stop the flipping music.”
When it comes to finding a main character, it seems to clearly identify James Corden’s No Name Smurf (left) as the protagonist, but again, Rihanna’s Smurfette has such a notable presence to the point where she almost steals the spotlight. You might as well call this movie an 89 minute Rihanna music video featuring the Smurfs. I had trouble figuring out what this movie was trying to be. Is it a musical? Is it a comedy? Is it an adventure? Is it the latest attempt at the multiverse craze? The people behind the movie do not seem to know who exactly they are making it for. “Smurfs” is a family-friendly property, so the crew definitely had children in mind. Although one difference between “Smurfs” and another film from this year I frankly disliked, “A Minecraft Movie,” is that the kids at my screening seemed to be into it, whereas “Smurfs” was a misfire for all audiences, including yours truly.
If I had to pick a movie that “Smurfs” reminds me of, my immediate answer is “The Emoji Movie.” Will kids like this movie? Theoretically. Will adults like this movie? Probably not. Is it colorful and polished? Yes. Does have an everyday “nobody” protagonist? You betcha! Does it have generic sounding songs that have had their time on top 40 radio that get stuck in your head once you leave the theater? Absolutely! If you ever read my expletive-riddled review for “The Emoji Movie,” you may remember me comparing that pile of excrement to films like “The LEGO Movie,” “Wreck-it Ralph,” and “Inside Out,” suggesting that “The Emoji Movie” is a remix of those flicks, but significantly worse. “Smurfs” is basically a reskin of “The Emoji Movie.” Sadly, “The Emoji Movie” lingered so much in my mind that I could not think of any good films to compare “Smurfs” to while I was watching it. At one point, “The LEGO Movie” came to mind because No Name Smurf kind of reminded me of Emmet, whose standout quality is being incredibly pedestrian and everyday, but this film, arguably on purpose, felt like a spiritual sequel to “The Emoji Movie.”
Heck, James Corden is in both films! James Corden seems to be at the top of the list called “Actors to hire if you Have no faith in your project.” Between this film, “The Emoji Movie,” “Cats,” “Gulliver’s Travels,” “Superintelligence,” and “Cinderella,” Corden has built quite the resume of films that made me question my position as a movie person.
Did I mention that both movies reference arguably the most famous line from “Casablanca?” Because they do! And I would argue that “Smurfs” somehow trumps “The Emoji Movie” in terms of how poorly executed the delivery of that line was.
Yes, this movie has tons of stars in it. But they are all given a script that feels more akin to something that would go straight to Paramount+. I guarantee, if Rihanna, and perhaps some of these other actors were not in this film, this would be a streaming exclusive.
That said, there is one segment that I admire in this movie. Without spoilers, it involves a multiversal trip. I thought it was kind of creative. Unfortunately, it only lasts for a minute or two, and then the movie goes back to its regularly scheduled so-called programming. I could see this segment being something that one of the film’s animators would be proud to have on their demo reel. It is the greatest spark of creativity in what is ultimately a dumpster fire that lacks any and all imagination. The film is not consistent with its style. One moment it is fully animated. In another it is live-action. And there’s tons of weird blending between the two styles that sometimes make no sense whatsoever.
The film also reminded me of the equally unimaginative 2011 film “The Smurfs.” Not just because the film features the same characters, but the story beats are kind of similar because all the Smurfs end up leaving Smurf Village and end up in the real world. But perhaps more importantly, both films are not funny and absolutely boring! For an 89 minute movie to be boring is a true feat. It is one thing if the movie is two and a half-hours, but this movie flies at a TikTok pace and still manages to make me, and perhaps the children around me, want to fall asleep. The Smurfs in this movie may be blue, but by the time it was over, it had me turning red.
In the end, “Smurfs” is smurfing bad! It sounds like the obvious comment to make at this time, but if anything it is only fitting after watching this predictable 89 minute brain cell eradicator. “Smurfs” is easily the worst film I have seen so far this year. The film’s full of cringeworthy sequences that feel more like they are designed to show off Rihanna’s singing voice rather than tell a compelling narrative. The movie’s script is riddled with jokes that feel dated. And if they are not dated, they likely will be in five years. There is a sibling rivalry subplot between the film’s villains that ends up being a bore. The film surprisingly has enough time to introduce Kurt Russell’s character. By the time we got to his part of the film, my first thought was “Wait, now? Why are we doing this?” I like me some Kurt Russell, but his presence in the film feels out of the blue. No pun intended. If you want a good movie to take your child to, get tickets for “Elio” or if they’re a little older, take them to see “Superman.” I think the film will grab their attention, and possibly stick with them even as they get older. Do not waste your money on “Smurfs.” I am going to give “Smurfs” a 1/10.
You might make an argument that me not liking this film is irrelevant because it caters more towards children than it does adults. I do not know. I think the many silent children in my theater would have something to say to you. And also this brings up another thing, if the children in my theater, or other children who watched this film for that matter, did like it, I wonder what they will think of it in ten years. Will they feel the same way? Again, this is why I always bring up Pixar as animation’s current gold standard, because they are making films that refuse to insult children’s intelligence. Kids like them. Adults like them. Everyone likes them. Heck, I, a 25 year old man, watched “Cars” recently, which I first checked out when I was six years old. It is still worth watching as an adult. The film looks fantastic, features likable characters, and with my older age, I appreciated the film’s commentary on convenience and how that changes society. It did a great job at that by highlighting the unfortunate impact an Interstate had on the small town of Radiator Springs. Sure, “Smurfs” tries to implement a lesson about being yourself, but it feels surface level and is not enough to save the film from being dull and unfunny. Please avoid this movie at all costs, you will thank me later.
“Smurfs” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror film, “Together.” Stay tuned! Also, I will eventually be sharing my thoughts on “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 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 “Smurfs?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the best piece of “Smurfs” media out there? I need to know because these recent movies do not seem to be doing it for me. If anyone has a recommendation, please send it my way. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Bad Guys 2” is directed by Pierre Perifel and JP Sans, and stars Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Way Way Back), Marc Maron (Maron, GLOW), Awkwafina (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Renfield), Craig Robinson (Ghosted, The Office), Anthony Ramos (Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, In the Heights), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple, Orange is the New Black), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Orange is the New Black), Maria Bakalova (The Apprentice, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm), Alex Borstein (Family Guy, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), Richard Ayoade (The Watch, The IT Crowd), and Lilly Singh (A Little Late with Lilly Singh, Canada’s Got Talent). Struggling with acceptance from the general public, the Bad Guys, who have since turned “good,” are recruited for a job by an all-girl squad of criminals.
Kind of like Illumination, it is somewhat unusual for a DreamWorks animated property to not end up getting a sequel at some point. It was perhaps inevitable this would happen with “The Bad Guys.” The first film was well received by critics and was a hit with families. It is also based on a popular series of books. Naturally, it makes sense to create a “Bad Guys” sequel. As for my thoughts on the original film, I thought it was surprisingly fun, but also a bit disposable. There is also a problem I have with the film that, spoiler alert, I also have with this sequel. More on that later.
If you like “The Bad Guys,” chances are you will like “The Bad Guys 2.” I have my problems with “The Bad Guys” but I enjoyed it just enough to the point where I could say I had an okay time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains everything that works from the original, and delivers it in a new, fresh package that I personally found to be more entertaining.
A lot of the original cast returns for this second outing. Of course you have the film’s big name stars including Sam Rockwell, Awkwafina, and Marc Maron coming back as some of the core characters. Like the original, they unleash tremendous charisma in each of their roles. I appreciated this sequel’s continuation of having Rockwell’s Mr. Wolf (top right) break the fourth wall. It adds a welcoming touch and sucks you into this film’s world.
The film even welcomes back my favorite character from the first outing, Misty Luggins (center), once again voiced by Alex Borstein. Between the two films, she has been promoted from Chief to Commissioner, which ends up becoming one of the script’s many gags. The gag is a simple one… Mr. Wolf repeatedly messes up Luggins’ position. As far as gags go, one could call this lazy, and I would not blame anybody for doing that, but it is saved by how the voice actors, most notably Borstein, deliver their lines. You could feel the ire coming out of Luggins with each misinterpretation.
I like my characters to have depth, but sometimes the simplest character can work if done right. Luggins is one example of this. Because in each scene, much like the previous installment, I got a sense of the character’s passion. Whether it is represented through something as simple as being acknowledged correctly, or as complicated as capturing the Bad Guys once and for all. Luggins feels like DreamWorks’ version of Wile E. Coyote. Between what we saw of her in these two films so far, part of me wishes she could have her own spinoff. Maybe we could see her trying to catch the Bad Guys time and time and time again, and failing. Or maybe a life in a day film showcasing some crazy story or case she has encountered. I think it would also be a great way to showcase Alex Borstein’s chops. She is fantastic in the role.
This is an animated film, so some suspension of disbelief is inevitable. But when the film gets to the climax, I felt the same way that I did during the climax of “Sisu.” The film spends a lot of time getting you immersed into this crazy, zany world, but things that happen on screen get dumber and less realistic by its conclusion. There is a whole concept involving gold that on the surface, sounds intriguing, but the resolution left me with a question regarding how this was handled according to the public eye.
Speaking of suspension of disbelief, much like the original film, I am left wondering why there are not more non-human characters in this world. If “The Bad Guys” were a video game, the only NPCs would be humans. No one else. There are plenty of non-human characters in the forefront, but not so much in the background. Why is this? If you look at a film like “Zootopia,” it has such a diverse group of creatures making up its universe. This film’s universe kind of feels less creative and lazy by comparison. This is not to say the film itself is lazily done. The animation style is stunning and unique. The script is sometimes clever, even if it does get a little too over the top.
When it comes to the DreamWorks Animation library, this is not the most memorable film of the bunch. But it is undoubtedly entertaining. One reason why I would love to go back to it one day is for the action scenes. The film has a couple of creative sequences that feel like they are straight out of a graphic novel. The scenes are flashy and full of life. There is one sequence that takes place in a wrestling ring that is a feast for the eyes.
Although this film is more than just style. As someone who experienced a little trouble finding work once graduating college, there are some scenes that I related to as it properly highlights the competition that comes with the job market. Although in the case of this film’s core group, it is much harder, because they are known for committing crimes, and therefore have a bad reputation.
Heck, they’re literally called the BAD guys! I wonder if Agent Burns from “Bumblebee” would have anything to say about this group.
Sure, the ensemble may have turned good, but their past does not appear to have gone over the general public’s head. Overall, the movie is a good lesson for younger audiences, reminding them to maintain a positive image, because one wrong move could change everything.
To my surprise, at the end of “The Bad Guys 2,” one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind is that I want to see another one. These characters are fascinating and seem to play off each other quite well. I would not mind hanging out with them one more time.
By the way, once the film gets to the credits, do not leave your chair, because there is a mid-credits scene that you might want to stick around for.
In the end, “The Bad Guys 2” is funny, brilliantly animated, and wonderfully paced. It is an all killer, no filler good time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains many positives from the original and even improves upon some of them. Granted, it also contains some of the negatives. I still cannot get over the fact that there are not more non-human characters in a world like this one. Is that just a me thing? Is this not bothering anyone else? In all seriousness, I think families will have a blast with this film. It is filled with mile a minute humor and my theater, myself included, was laughing quite a bit. I am going to give “The Bad Guys 2” a 7/10.
Before I conclude this review, I would like to point something out in the film’s end credits. Just before the credits conclude, there is a short text that reads “This work may not be used to train AI.” I have no idea if that is a Universal Pictures policy, a DreamWorks policy, or if this was at the request of the director or a producer, but I fully endorse this. I understand that “the future is now,” but as an artist, I would prefer to see more work done strictly by people. We cannot have human stories without a human touch. Anything to have more human stories out there is always a good thing.
“The Bad Guys 2” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another animated family film, “Smurfs.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Together,” “Oh, Hi,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 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 Bad Guys 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which installment of “The Bad Guys” do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is directed by Matt Shakman (WandaVision, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and stars Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Andor, The Bear), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One, Stranger Things), Julia Garner (Wolf Man, Ozark), Sarah Niles (Catastrophe, Ted Lasso), Mark Gatiss (Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, The Father), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Paul Walter Hauser (The Luckiest Man in America, Inside Out 2), and Ralph Ineson (The Witch, Nosferatu). This film is the latest entry to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and centers around a family of superheroes who must defend earth from the space God Galactus.
This movie felt like a long time coming. Remember that sizzle reel Marvel had promoting all the movies coming out in the 2020s, trying to get people back to the cinema following the closures prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic? If you did not see it, I highly recommend checking it out, it is perfectly edited. But if you have seen it, you may recall at the end came this giant “4,” letting fans know that a Marvel Studios attempt at “Fantastic Four” was finally on its way. Only question was, when would we actually see this film come to life? The answer, long before Mahershala Ali gets his own “Blade” movie. That said, while the idea of a Marvel Studios-produced “Fantastic Four” was intriguing, the property comes with some baggage that has likely lowered expectations for future projects.
“Fantastic Four” is one of Marvel’s most celebrated franchises, and much like “Spider-Man,” the property has been adapted for the big screen multiple times. Although unlike “Spider-Man,” “Fantastic Four” has never been a surefire hit. Sure, some people have nostalgia for the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies, but overall, they do not have the best track record critically. Having seen them, I cannot exactly say those films are good myself. The 2015 film, which some dub as “Fant4stic,” is not the worst comic book movie I have ever seen, but it is undoubtedly soulless and reeks of corporate desperation. On a positive note, if you can call it that, at least that film got released…
…Unlike that discarded project from 1994.
Now that the Walt Disney Company, and therefore Marvel Studios, maintains the rights to the “Fantastic Four” property, I was curious to see what Kevin Feige and crew were going to do with it. This is where “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” comes in. While not everyone appears to agree with me, I love the film’s marketing. The film promises a retro-futuristic ride with a family trying to save their world. I was hoping the movie would be as epic as its trailers had me assume it would be, and I am glad to report it most certainly is.
One thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is both a blessing and a curse is that most of the movies feel the same as the next. This results in a tonal consistency from one project to the next. But it also sometimes leaves little room for variety and outside the box thinking. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” has some familiarities from Marvel’s other projects, but it comes off as one of the most individualistic entries to the MCU. It sometimes has a “Guardians of the Galaxy” feel due to the film taking place in space, but “Fantastic Four” ultimately feels like its own movie because it is set in a universe outside most of Marvel’s projects. As an added benefit, the film lessens the need for homework or to connect itself to other properties or characters.
Speaking of that “Guardians of the Galaxy” vibe, the film’s space scenes are visually awe-inspiring and full of color. Although whereas “Guardians of the Galaxy” reminds me a bit of “Star Wars,” there are ways that “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” reminds me more of “Star Trek.” The sets sometimes feel like something out of Gene Roddenberry’s mind. Compared to “Guardians,” “Fantastic Four” feels less action-centered. Plus, the film carries this vibe of setting the stage for tomorrow. Much like DC’s “Superman,” “Fantastic Four” maintains a sense of hope. It leans into the idea of persevering even through the impossible. It celebrates brawn, but also brains. The film at one point leans into this seemingly impossible plan on Reed Richards’ mind, all in the hope of saving mankind. If this film were set on Earth-616, which seems to have quite a bit in common with our own universe, I would probably be more critical of Richards’ plan. But the movie is instead set on Earth 828, which likely opens the doors for more creativity and imagination. Therefore, as silly as Richards’ plan sounds, I was so sucked into this film that part of me was going along for the ride.
Speaking of Reed Richards, Pedro Pascal is in way too many projects! …Is what I might say if he did not do a good job as this film’s lead. Pascal has been busy lately between this film, “Eddington,” “Materialists,” among other projects. But there is a reason why he is getting so much work. He never fails to impress. First off, I am super happy to see Pascal redeem himself in the comic book movie sub-genre after the colossal disappointment that is “Wonder Woman 1984.” Second, Pascal is charming as Mister Fantastic. He is never over the top, but I bought into Pascal’s constant drive, and sometimes his disappointment. There is a scene in the middle of the film where Richards faces a large crowd and lets out his brutally honest thoughts, and I could truly feel his pain with each word that came out of his mouth.
While not my favorite character in the film, its heart and soul for me is Sue Storm, or the Invisible Woman. I liked Vanessa Kirby leading up to “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” but this might be the first film where I can say I truly love her. Kirby gives such a powerful performance. I got a sense that she wants what is best for other people, especially her family. I also like how the film utilizes her powers, even if the action in this movie is minimal. More on that in a second.
Joseph Quinn puts on a good portrayal of Johnny Storm. Whereas Reed and Sue feel grounded, Johnny’s placement in the film shows him to be upbeat and hyperactive. Of the family, he comes off as the comic relief. Throughout the film I also could not help but notice Joseph Quinn and think he looked like a younger Chris Evans. Of course, if you know your Marvel history, Evans played Johnny Storm in the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies. As for which performance is better, Quinn excels by miles, perhaps unfairly, given how he had much better material to work with as opposed to having every other line out of his mouth showcase his womanizing tendencies.
I would have to watch the film a second time to confirm how I really feel, but I think the Thing might be my favorite hero in the film. Ebon-Moss Bachrach unleashes a heap of charisma as one giant pile of CGI rocks. The special effects look pristine and there is not a moment where they took me out of the movie. Ultimately, if I had to choose one member of the Fantastic Four to meet for lunch somewhere, it would easily be The Thing. Ben Grimm is a genuinely likable guy who appears to be great with children. He has fun with everything that comes with his superhero life.
The action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is really good, but if you are looking for nonstop, chaotic sequences, this is where “Superman” will serve you better. When it comes to the action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” what we get is great, but it left me wanting more. The best thing I can say about the action is that each sequence had a logical and meaningful place in the story. Never once did I feel that I was watching an action sequence that was overdone just for the sake of showing off flashy effects.
On that note, while some Marvel projects as of late have some problematic special effects, I cannot think of one scene in “The Fanatastic Four: First Steps” where the effects were bad. I thought everything looked polished and maintained a sense of verisimilitude.
The climax in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” undoubtedly comes with a sense of finality, but it also in a sense feels much smaller than some of the other films in the MCU. Despite my appreciation for the film unveiling Reed Richards’ smarts, I wish we could have gotten a tiny bit more of a showcase of his superpowers. I do not hate the climax, but I could understand people watching it and thinking “Man, that was short,” or, “Wow, that could have used more sparkle.” But for me, I appreciated it because it put the characters first. You have Galactus with an easy to understand motivation. Then you also have a family of superheroes thinking on their feet, while trying to protect the planet and their circle.
Speaking of Galactus, he looks terrific. He is quite literally a massive improvement over whatever the heck the crew behind “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” conjured up. Unlike that film, Galactus is a tall space god, not a giant cloud. And his motivation is nothing more than to consume worlds. Sometimes you do not need to go higher than that. The film makes such a simple idea so compelling. Ralph Ineson does a good job with the role.
On that note, speaking of villains, I thought Julia Garner was well cast as the Silver Surfer. To my surprise, the film does such a marvelous job at humanizing her. I did not know what to expect from the trailers. It did not show a ton of her character, but I was pleasantly delighted to see how the movie handles her. Also, props to the effects team for bringing her to life. She looks attractively glossy but also menacing when she needs to be.
Part of why I was so sucked into this movie was its narrative. Also like “Superman,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” skips over the origin story. The film does explain it, but it does not spend much time showing it. What the film is really about is the team, most especially Reed Richards and Sue Storm, preparing for the birth of their child. Only thing is, there is a whole galactic event that could prevent such a thing from going smoothly. The characters are presented with an incredible dilemma that seems tough to take in once it is given to them. However, it is one that depending on what choice is made, other people could interpret as self-centered. I love this dilemma. It kind of reminds me of that scene in “Spider-Man” where the title character is faced with a choice to save Mary Jane or the people onboard the Roosevelt Island tram, but this stakes here are so much higher. There are many more lives that these characters have to worry about. For those not in the know I will not spoil how this dilemma gets resolved, but I imagine some of you could probably predict how it unfolds.
For years, I thought Marvel ate DC for breakfast when it comes to their film slate. This is evident in so many regards including story, characters, humor, tonal consistency, and world-building. But while select titles like “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Endgame” have moved me with their original scores, DC has always slayed when it comes to its music. I am not the biggest fan of “Wonder Woman 1984,” but I play that film’s tracks on a highly consistent basis. That said, Michael Giacchino may have delivered the best score in a Marvel Studios film, not to mention a contender for my favorite score of the decade so far.
As mentioned before, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” heavily dives into the realm of retro-futurism, and the music compliments that vibe to perfection. By itself, it is an epic superhero theme. When you break it down even further, it combines the magnificence of old school orchestras but every other millisecond you will hear a sound that evokes a sense of moving forward. As I hear this film’s main theme, I both imagine myself wanting to hear it at Carnegie Hall while also thinking about what it would be like to get down to it at the club. This is my favorite Michael Giacchino score since “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” and that says something considering how boisterously epic that music gets at times, especially towards the climax.
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” might be my favorite comic book movie of the year. Is it a perfect film? No. If anything, I think it would benefit from a smidge more action. That said, I have no problem with the action scenes we have. Each one is essential to the story and feels special. Nothing feels overdone. Even the big final fight feels smaller for Marvel standards, but that does not mean it is bad. The fight successfully ties up loose ends established throughout the film, and finishes in a fashion that leaves me more than satisfied. Much like “Thunderbolts*,” another Marvel title released earlier this year, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is a film that I will remember fondly because of how well utilized its main ensemble turned out to be. If the characters do not work, then the movie does not work. Thankfully, the characters are phenomenally written and truly feel like a family.
By the way, the film contains two scenes during the credits. The second one is more of a “fun scene.” It does not really add much to the film other than referencing something that was highlighted earlier. You will not miss much if you skip it. But make it your mission to stay in your seat for the first one. DO NOT get up when the credits roll. If you are at risk of being late for your table at Seasons 52, then so be it! Do not miss the mid-credits scene!
In the end, I cannot wait to watch “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” a second time. This film is legitimately some of the most fun I have had at the movies this year. It is a film that never lets its characters escape from conflict. Every single scene had me engaged. While his motivation is not complicated, Galactus quite literally stands tall with such a commanding screen presence. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is an exceptional start to phase 6, and it only has me beaming for whatever Marvel has up its sleeves next. It is by far the best “Fantastic Four” movie without “Incredibles” in the title. I am going to give “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” an 8/10.
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Bad Guys 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my reviews for “Smurfs,” “Together,” “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 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 Fantastic Four: First Steps?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on the other “Fantastic Four” movies we have gotten? Do you have a favorite “Fantastic Four” movie? I am willing to bet most people would agree that this latest one is the best of the bunch, but it is the Internet. Crazy things can happen. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Guns Up” is written and directed by Edward Drake and stars Kevin James (King of Queens, Here Comes the Boom), Christina Ricci (Speed Racer, Casper), Maximilian Osinski (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Ted Lasso), Luis Guzmán (The Limey, Oz), and Melissa Leo (The Fighter, All My Children). This film is about a mob henchmen whose final job goes wrong and now it is up to him to keep his family safe.
I watch less television than movies. But sitcoms have played a heavy role in my TV habits through the years. One show that has long been a mainstay of mine is “King of Queens.” It is a fantastic show, but it is also one that comes with a side effect due to seeing Kevin James’ character from one episode to the next for a long time. Kevin James is super funny on “King of Queens” as Doug Heffernan, but ever since his noticeable jump to film following the series finale, I sometimes have trouble seeing James as anyone else. Sure, Paul Blart has a mustache. Whatever. Films like “Zookeeper,” “Grown Ups,” and “Pixels” see Kevin James playing variants of Doug Heffernan, despite some noticeable differences. But “Guns Up,” kind of like another recent Kevin James film, “Becky,” feels like an unexpected move coming from the comedic actor. Also like “Becky,” I thought “Guns Up” was a solid, albeit imperfect flick.
Going off of what I just said about Kevin James, if someone were to pitch “Guns Up” to me and said they wrote the screenplay with Kevin James in mind for the lead role of Ray Hayes, I would gladly tell that person to belly flop into a kiddie pool naked to think about what they have done. But I was pleasantly surprised. James does a good job carrying the film and just about every scene featuring him is fun to watch. I was also surprised to see how well he handled some of the action choreography. I am not sure how much of it was done with a double, but James did a good job with the action scenes and I bought into his character. There are elements of James’ previous, more comedy-based performances that sneak themselves into his latest one, but this is definitely one of the more unique outings James has had as an actor. I thought “Becky” was an unexpected turn for James when that film came out. But having now seen that film along with “Guns Up,” I am open to seeing James in many types of projects that I probably would have never imagined he’d take on about a decade ago. I have no idea if he would take on an Oscar bait role in the next five years. That said, Dwayne Johnson seems to be doing so right now with “The Smashing Machine” based on how that film is being marketed, so anything is possible. Heck, for all I know he could have a turn similar to his occasional co-star, Adam Sandler, like he did in “Uncut Gems.”
The screenplay is one of the more grounded ones James has taken on, though there is plenty of comedy sprinkled throughout. I am not going to say all of it was funny. There is one gag involving the f-word that was so overdone that it almost made me want to utter some swears myself. But there are gags that work, including one that shows the children learning how to shoot a gun. I thought that scene was cleverly executed and had a couple unpredictable lines. When it comes to comedy, the real star of the show for me is Leo Easton Kelly as Henry. To me, his character would sometimes remind me of myself when I was younger. I got the impression he would sometimes just jump into a conversation almost randomly just to get some attention. While I do not remember the exact lines, I recall Henry giving me perhaps the two biggest laughs in the movie. I do not know if “Guns Up” is going to be Kelly’s big break because the movie is from a lesser known studio and had a day and date release. As a matter of fact, on opening weekend, there were no showtimes for this film in my home state of Massachusetts, including Boston. I was lucky enough to be in Illinois, where this film happened to be playing when it came out.
“Guns Up” is an action-comedy, and there are plenty of films where those two genres can blend together seamlessly. Films like “Ride Along,” “Free Guy,” and “Zombieland” are a few that come to mind. As mentioned, “Guns Up” is not a bad movie, but it does not mean it is tonally consistent. Going back to “Free Guy,” it is a film where the action and the comedy tend to work together. You have Ryan Reynolds trying to take down a bigger, badder, nuder version of himself by the end of the movie. It is hilarious and also easy on the eyes. “Guns Up” is a movie where it is a little bit of action and a little bit of comedy. The genres at times feel like they distract from each other rather than do what “Free Guy” does which is make them work together. This is not to say the action is bad. This is not to say the comedy is bad. But it feels like it comes from two different visions. Only one person wrote the film, so this is not a result of too many cooks in the kitchen. That said, if this film were being prepared in the kitchen, it is perhaps possible that it is being made by a cook that is dealing with a Franken-recipe at times.
Speaking of the action, “Guns Up” is by no means the next “John Wick,” even though there is a line towards the climax that tries to make the audience think otherwise. In fact, the climax is a lot of fun. All of the characters play off each other well. The action, while not the best I have ever seen, is decently handled. There is a good mix of people working with their hands as well as using more advanced weaponry.
Much of the film is fluidly shot and decently cut. I cannot confirm the exact budget of “Guns Up,” but having seen the film, its budget definitely comes off as somewhat limited. I say this film is not the next “John Wick,” but I say that knowing that the “John Wick” franchise does not always come with a tiny budget. The film perhaps does not pop like a “John Wick” movie does sometimes, but it most certainly gets the job done and kept me on the edge of my seat.
One of my favorite moments of action in “Guns Up” involves a group of people going through a doorway, at which point the camera does not move. The shot shows tons of combat without having to pan, tilt, or cut to the next angle. It is such a minimalist idea, but it is executed beautifully. Take notes, “Taken 3!”
In the end, “Guns Up” gets a thumbs up. For the record, it is not a big thumbs up. The film’s budgetary limitations sometimes make themselves clear. The tone of the movie is sometimes inconsistent. Again, this film is an action comedy, and while neither of those two aspects are done horribly, the film’s action and humor are not the best I have ever seen. Other than the main family, the film’s supporting cast did not entirely stand out. That said, the film is most definitely entertaining and if you were to check it out, you would not be wasting your time. Is it a fantastic watch? No. Is it a decent watch? Yes, that seems to be a fair assessment. I am going to give “Guns Up” a 6/10.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, be sure to look forward to some of my other ones! I have a long list of reviews coming including for “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” “Smurfs,” “Together,” and “Oh, Hi!” 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 “Guns Up?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite project featuring Kevin James? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Superman” is directed by James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy, The Suicide Squad) and stars David Corenswet (Twisters, Pearl), Rachel Brosnahan (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, House of Cards), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Juror #2), Edi Gathegi (Into the Badlands, Twilight), Anthony Carrigan (The Forgotten, Gotham), Nathan Fillion (The Rookie, Firefly), and Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold). This film centers around the titular hero as he takes on Lex Luthor while trying to win back the general public’s trust.
It’s finally here. A brand spankin’ new cinematic universe. Just like DC’s last attempt at one of these ongoing sagas, we are kicking things off with Superman, this time around played by David Corenswet. When the DC Universe was announced, I was excited about it. Yes, I was enjoying the DCEU, but demand for it to continue has clearly diminished with one unsuccessful project after another, so I get why this new universe is happening. What really sold me is who would be involved. There was Peter Safran, a producer behind many of Warner Bros.’ recent films, including some DC fare. And alongside him on the more creative side was James Gunn, the director of this very film.
While Gunn is not my favorite filmmaker working today, he has a respectable knack for the craft. I thought he was perfect to shepherd something like this partially because of his love for comic books, as well as his experience with adapting them into films like Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Plus, with the release of “The Suicide Squad” in 2021, he is responsible for making my favorite DC movie ever. And I say this as someone who has seen every DCEU movie. Every Christopher Reeve “Superman” movie.” Every Christopher Nolan “Batman” movie. Even “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Not to mention “V for Vendetta!” There was a point where “Superman” was my most anticipated film of the year. That has changed having seen the more recent marketing, which was not horrible, but kind of lost steam for me the more I knew about the film. There were undoubtedly plenty of creative marketing stunts in recent weeks, but if we are just talking about trailers, that is where I feel the batting average starts to weaken. But who knows? Maybe I could walk out of the movie having a blast.
A lot was riding on this film between a new cinematic universe, trying to get general audiences onboard, as well as making a relatable story about a god. James Gunn and Peter Safran can take a moment to breathe a sigh of relief. This film is excellent.
Is “Superman” my favorite comic book film of the year? No. I prefer “Thunderbolts*” over “Superman,” but there is no denying that the latter is a blast. That said, there is something that separates “Superman” from a lot of recent comic book movies, even some of the better ones. With this being a brand new cinematic universe, there is no homework to be done to prepare for this movie. “Superman” is not the first entry to the DC Universe. It is the first film installment, but the current cinematic universe started earlier this year on HBO Max with the animated series “Creature Commandos.” Even so, one can go into “Superman” knowing nothing about the DC Universe, the comics, or any other piece of media related to the character and have a good time. It likely helps if you are more attached to that stuff, but it is not necessary.
While “Superman” may not be my favorite comic book film of the year, there is a serious possibility that this is likely the best “Superman” movie ever. It is definitely a more generalized interpretation of the character than “Man of Steel” but it is more pleasing to the palate. Despite my praise for “Man of Steel” and what would be my favorite “Superman” film if it were not for this latest one coming out, “Superman: The Movie,” there are parts of both stories that drag. Meanwhile, in this film, the pacing is quite literally perfect. The film is not exactly an origin story, though it does introduce Superman’s birthparents as well as Ma and Pa Kent. Instead it starts off with Superman losing a battle for the first time. We are not even two minutes into the movie, and it has already made a literal god compelling and relatable with what may be his lowest low as a hero. And it does not even stop there. Because if you stick around for the rest of the film, Superman has to deal with issues that are not only relevant, but incredibly human.
“Superman” astoundingly links to multiple prominent real world issues. Whether it has to do nations or groups of people fighting each other, hostile world leaders, the downsides of social media, or having your life forever changed by false information. The film is also likely an allegory on immigration. After all, Superman is not from Earth. So, despite him living there, he is technically an illegal alien. The rivalry between Superman and Lex Luthor sees the latter irritated by the former because in a sense he, an outsider, is being prominently celebrated to the point where Lex, an Earthling, envies him. This film does an amazing job of putting pressures on a popular figure like Superman. He knows how to be a hero in a general sense, but he is not as super in other areas such as dealing with social media controversy or handling the press. Although I will say, as well as that last concept is, it is a tad unexpected considering Clark Kent works for a news outlet, but still.
When I think about “Superman” my mind often goes to about how hard the character must be to write, and this film does an amazing job in terms of its script. I was genuinely surprised by how hooked I was by James Gunn’s vision from start to finish. But the pressure must have been equally as high for David Corenswet. Some of you who have not seen this movie yet are probably wondering who Corenswet is, but if you watch the film, I think he would be responsible for putting a smile on your face. When it comes to the movie variants of Supes, I do not think a single performer has ever been bad. That said, as much respect as I have for Henry Cavill as Superman in the DCEU, I think Corenswet’s character channels more joy, and he works well that way. Part of this is due to how he was written and directed, but when I look at Corenswet and hear him speak, it allows for an incredibly welcoming presence. While this Superman is very much Corenswet’s own thing, his interpretation somewhat reminded me of what I enjoy about Christopher Reeve’s take on the character. He is a likable role model, albeit flawed in certain ways.
We learn that there is so much more to Superman behind the big fat “S.” Going back to what I said about his handling of controversy, there is a fantastic scene early on in the film where the pressures of an interview are getting to him. Lois Lane is asking him a bunch of questions and he ends up saying things that he then realizes he probably did not want to say. We see that Supes is strong on the outside, but he might not always be the best at hiding his emotions. This is not to say he is a wuss. If anything, it means he avoids falling into the trap of toxic masculinity, but he also is not afraid to showcase how he really feels.
The surprise star of the show? Krypto the Superdog. I genuinely did not expect to like this character as much as I did. First off, I am not a dog person. I am allergic to dogs and my sensitive ears are not exactly the best things to have when a dog happens to be near me and starts barking up a storm. But Krypto is perfectly utilized here. He is not exactly a “good boy.” Though I can see one making a valid argument suggesting he actually is, considering he is loyal to his master. To my surprise, Krypto’s action scenes brought out some of my biggest laughs during the film.
The thing I perhaps loved most about this movie is its nature to embrace the silly and fantastical. Of course, with this being a James Gunn film, there is a scene where Superman takes on a kaiju in the middle of Metropolis. The film skips over Superman’s origin story and introduces other DC heroes like Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, Green Lantern, and the fantastically portrayed Mr. Terrific. James Gunn knows how to inject charisma into characters who may seem like they belong in the background, and Mr. Terrific is one such example. He is most certainly as terrific as his name suggests. I almost cannot see anyone else but Edi Gathegi in his shoes. Every line out of him is given with such pizazz. I would love to have lunch with Mr. Terrific if I was given the chance.
The film kind of reminds me of a Studio Ghibli title like “Ponyo.” One of my favorite things about that film is that even the adults seem to embrace things some in “the real world” would consider to be out there or of the land of make believe. I found it fascinating how Lois Lane, who by the way is excellently portrayed by Rachel Brosnahan, simply accepts the idea that she is flying an intuitive, advanced super vehicle.
That said, with this being a comic book movie, we have the return of one of the most overused jokes in the sub-genre. Specifically, this film has a gag that has something to do with a specific name. This is a joke as common as a Dunkin’ location in New England. It is not always a bad joke, it is just overdone. This time around, it revolves around the group of heroes trying to determine what exactly to call their team. The jokes are passable and by no means offensive. But they sometimes lack originality, especially coming off of “Thunderbolts*” which handled this cliché surprisingly well.
Speaking of humor, that is something that James Gunn is no stranger to in his movies. If you are coming to “Superman” to laugh, I am not saying you won’t, but the laughs in this film are not as strong as say “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “The Suicide Squad.” Then again, laughter is not exactly the most important item on the to-do list of making a “Superman” movie. That said, it is nice to have. The script, while definitely lighthearted, sucks me in to the point where I am more excited to see Lex Luthor lose his mind.
On that note, Nicholas Hoult is irreplaceable as Lex Luthor. They say a movie is only as good as its villain. And I will remember Hoult’s interpretation of the iconic villain for a very long time. Hoult has proven himself to be a solid actor in previous projects like “The Menu” and “Juror #2.” Meanwhile in “Superman,” Hoult unleashes a side of himself I am not used to seeing. His take on Lex Luthor is almost hyperactive nightmare fuel. While Lex Luthor may look like someone who can take a punch at times, he is beyond intimidating. His methods of trying to kill Superman sometimes teeter into Saturday morning cartoon territory, but James Gunn made me buy much of the movie’s over the top tendencies and choices.
With this being the first movie of its cinematic universe, “Superman” spends a little time teasing what is ahead, and I am interested to see what is next. Of course, I am a bit predisposed to these kinds of projects, but I probably would not be as excited for what lies ahead if I was not enjoying what was already in front of me. “Superman” may not be the best movie of the year, but it is unbelievably fun. It would have been a colossal disappointment if this movie failed because you only have one chance to make a first impression. I cannot wait to see what the DCU delivers from here on out.
In the end, “Superman” is a super fun time! Is it James Gunn’s best comic book movie? No. But it is also far from his worst. It is miles better than “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” “Superman” is one of the most joy-filled movies of the year. It is packed with well written, phenomenally cast characters. The film never denies that “Superman” is a godly creature, but also spends lots of time humanizing him. I loved getting to know Clark Kent, as well as his alter ego. The story may be relevant, but it is delivered in such an otherworldly vibe. I was under the impression I was watching James Gunn flip comic book pages right in front of a projector lens. While I thought the score from John Murphy and David Fleming score could have used more memorable original bits and pieces, I thought the nods to John Williams’ music added a nice touch at times. Kind of like “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” I get why Williams’ music made into the final cut. He knows how to craft an epic theme. The film is off and on in the comedy department, but when it lands, it is smooth as butter. Go see this film with a group of people, everyone is guaranteed to have a great time. I am going to give “Superman” an 8/10.
“Superman” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new action movie “Guns Up.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” “Smurfs,” “Together,” and “Oh, Hi!.” If you want to see these 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 “Superman?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some things you are looking forward to seeing in the DCU going forward? Is there anything that has not been revealed yet that you would like to see? Personally, “Peacemaker” season 2 cannot come fast enough. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“F1: The Movie” is directed by Joseph Kosinski (Top Gun: Maverick, Tron: Legacy) and stars Brad Pitt (Ad Astra, Babylon), Damson Idris (Outside the Wire, Snowfall), Kerry Condon (The Banshees of Inisherin, Better Call Saul), Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, Dune), and Tobias Menzies (Game of Thrones, Outlander). This film centers around racer Sonny Hayes, who returns to the track following a long absence to boost his former teammate’s underdog team, all while mentoring a younger driver.
Director Joseph Kosinski has a knack for turning films into experiences. Back in 2010, he directed “Tron: Legacy,” which is one of the prettiest looking neon-infused fever dreams in cinematic history. But like lots of other people, the first film of his that comes to mind when you say his name, perhaps somewhat due to recency bias, is “Top Gun: Maverick.”
I had a blast watching “Top Gun: Maverick.” Is it a perfect movie? No. In fact there are some genuine screenplay problems that have been on my mind ever since I first saw it. That said, when I saw Kosinski’s name attached to “F1: The Movie,” it made perfect sense. If Kosinski can deliver to audiences the same kind of thrilling, high-octane, exhilarating experience that he did with “Top Gun: Maverick,” then I would be quite happy.
I am proud to report that Kosinski’s jump from planes to automobiles is just as exciting, and frankly, has a better story. Though that last part is not saying much. More on that later.
This film is an experience. My pupils dilated beyond their sockets watching this movie in IMAX. Part of this is thanks to the brilliant execution delivered in each shot from cinematographer Claudio Miranda, who previously worked with director Kosinski on “Top Gun: Maverick.” For a great chunk of the film I felt like I was inside the car driving it myself. There are several clever camera angles that gives the viewer the illusion they are moving with the car, whether it is on the side, on top, or while looking at the windshield. Some of these techniques are familiar. But there are select moments where the movie offers a first-person perspective that had me imagining that I was literally the car itself. There is a moment towards the film’s conclusion that is so riveting, so heart-pumping, and so freaking cool to look at that I could not help but glue my eyes to the screen. And it is even better in IMAX because the movie was shot with the company’s digital cameras, which expanded the aspect ratio for the entire film on their screens.
Keep in mind, it is the 1.90:1 aspect ratio, not 1.43:1. In Layman’s terms, it will not cover the whole screen at taller IMAX locations.
Once I saw Hans Zimmer’s name on the opening credits, I knew we were in for something special with the score. And something special we got. Some of the movie’s tunes genuinely got me excited. There is a moment that reminded me of another one of Hans Zimmer’s efforts, particularly “Interstellar,” mainly because the music appeared to be going at 60 beats per minute during one of the races. It seemed to be aiming for that “ticking clock” effect that was present for much of “Interstellar’s” runtime. The percussion in this film’s score is some of the best I have heard since Ludwig Gorranson’s score for “Tenet.”
The soundtrack in this film is not bad either. The film has a fairly rock-heavy soundtrack. There is not a bad track on the lineup. Perhaps the most well-known song on the list is Queen’s ‘We Will Rock You.” There is a pretty good use of it early on in the movie.
The best way I can sum up “F1: The Movie” is that on the surface, it is the quintessential “dad flick.” It is very much a movie that you can imagine being made for the “dad” crowd. It has fast cars, good looking men and women on screen, it has a good amount of rock music, and it is about someone who is trying to prove himself despite his older age.
I sincerely feel bad for anyone whose first experience of “F1: The Movie” is going to be through Apple TV+. After seeing this film, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” has got some competition for the greatest technical achievement of the year. This movie cost anywhere between $200-300 million to make, and I honestly can see all the money on the screen. Yes, the film has a well known star in Brad Pitt. But my jaw was on the floor with this film’s look. The colors. The audio. The camera angles. Everything in this film feels dialed up to an 11.
“F1: The Movie” is quite the ride. So, how is the script? It is not bad. As far as Joseph Kosinski’s library goes, this is a step up from “Top Gun: Maverick” in some ways. Perhaps the biggest improvement is that it never mysteriously refers to the antagonist as “the enemy.” What enemy? Who exactly? Who even cares?
The movie can most certainly be enjoyed by F1 fans, but it is definitely written with general audiences in mind. There are broadcaster bites throughout the film, highlighting every little nook and cranny throughout the race. As someone who has never sat down and seen an F1 race on television, I think this is an okay technique to use. The announcer lines are well done and there are quite a few that sound like they would come from a genuine sports telecast, and they also did a good job at introducing me to the rules of F1 that I probably would not have known right off the bat.
The one big negative, to a certain degree anyway, is that the movie is full of clichés. A lot of parts of the script feel been there done that. Though as I have addressed time and time again, clichés are fine as long as they are done well. And they are done well here. In fact, this movie feels like a genuine cousin to “Top Gun: Maverick” not only in terms of its experience, but structure as well. The film involves a race car driver who is trying to prove himself despite being past his prime, and much of the film sees him teaming up with a younger individual who shares his profession and ambitions. The two are off and on with each other, but ultimately have to work together no matter the obstacle.
If anything, “F1: The Movie” reminded me of Pixar’s “Cars,” and not just because both involve racing. But I happened to watch “Cars” a week before catching “F1: The Movie” in theaters and many of the story beats and character traits presented throughout the film felt interchangeable. “F1: The Movie” is kind of like the original “Cars” if someone gave it a bit of a “Freaky Friday” treatment. In this case, the filmmakers took Doc Hudson and made him the main character and turned Lightning McQueen into the supporting character. Additionally, they gave the Doc Hudson wannabe a little bit of Lightning McQueen’s entitlement.
So, maybe the story is generic, but it does not change the fact that I had fun watching it play out. Sometimes a simple story is effective as long as all the elements that make it up are done right. You have an arrogant but likable main character. You have an ambitious supporting character. All the other characters serve the story perfectly. On top of that, you have one of the most cinematic experiences of the year. What’s not to like about that?
In the end, “F1: The Movie” is an exciting race to the finish. You do not have to be an F1 fan to enjoy this film. It is simply an engaging two and a half hours of cinema that gets into gear and never runs out of gas. The script does not reinvent the wheel, but if you like watching wheels turn really fast, it will leave you beyond satisfied. I left this film thinking that this was likely going to have a strong presence in regards to the technical awards at this year’s Oscars ceremony. If “F1: The Movie” is playing in a theater near you, please check it out. You will have a ball. Do not wait for streaming. I imagine some of you are probably looking for an excuse to use your Apple TV+ subscription, but I guarantee the film will not look or feel as epic as it would on the big screen. I am going to give “F1: The Movie” a 7/10.
“F1: The Movie” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another highly anticipated summer blockbuster, “Superman.” At one point, this was my most anticipated film of the year. Admittedly, with more marketing coming out and other films making their presence known, some of the anticipation has dwindled a bit. That does not mean I was not excited, but I was interested enough to see if this film could truly be something special. I will share more of my thoughts during my upcoming review. Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Guns Up,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “The Bad Guys 2,” and “Smurfs.” 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 “F1: The Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, do you ever watch actual F1 sporting events? What’s that like? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“M3GAN 2.0” is directed by Gerard Johnstone, who also directed the original “M3GAN” installment. This film stars Allison Williams (Get Out, Girls), Violet McGraw (The Haunting of Hill House, Black Widow), Ivanna Sakhno (The Spy Who Dumped Me, Pacific Rim: Uprising), and Jermaine Clement (Moana, The Flight of the Conchords). This sequel sees the return of the original cast a couple years after the titular character went on a rampage. Despite her dangerous antics, said title character is tasked with taking down a robot named Amelia.
If you told me in 2023 that I would walk out of the original “M3GAN” having a great time, I would summon a lightning cloud and strike a bolt into your head. But to my surprise, the film is solid. And not just because the robot does a funny dance. I found it to be a fine metaphor for technology always being there for you, perhaps to extremely dangerous levels. I liked the first film so hopefully “M3GAN 2.0” would keep up the good work.
“M3GAN 2.0” had an unusual marketing campaign. The trailers seemed to indicate a shift similar to that of a James Cameron sequel like “Aliens” or “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” The first film is at its core, a horror movie. This sequel has horror elements, but it is a bit more action-oriented. It is definitely not as scary as the original film, at least not in a direct sense. Although if there was something that was as scary this time around, it would be the overhanging commentary. Another key difference this time around is that M3GAN goes from being a bad robot to a good gal. The film finds a less than buyable way to have her make amends with those she either harmed or nearly killed in the previous installment to justify her goodness, but still.
That is just one of several wrongs in this film’s screenplay. “M3GAN 2.0” is not that scary. Sure, this is less of a horror film than what the first film turned out to be, but there are attempts at horror in this film that do not stick the landing. The film clearly tries to be funny and edgy, but if anything it just sounds like M3GAN is trying her darndest every other second to join the cool kids table. If anything she comes off as a PG-13 robot “Deadpool.” There are select moments and lines where I think the film would have been better if they were done in a more R rated fashion. I am not saying that this film needs to go overboard like it’s the next “Wolf of Wall Street,” but I think it would have helped if M3GAN had a tad less of a filter. Granted, the original film was PG-13, so I guess logically this one had to be as well. If the film goes for an R, that would risk losing the younger audience who likely checked out the last film. But seriously! This sequel changes the genre as well as the titular robot’s personality. Why not a maturity shift? Is it to get more money? Because I do not think your $10 million opening weekend is not doing you any favors.
Honestly, the only genuine laugh I remember having in the film involves a line having to do with a yeast infection. If I did laugh at all for the remainder of the runtime, then said laughter was not that hard or it ended up being for the wrong reasons.
As previously established, “M3GAN 2.0” is an action movie. Is the action good? Well… It is competent. I do not have a ton of complaints regarding the action, but I am not going to pretend any of it was that memorable. Although there was one fun scene between the film’s antagonist and a wealthy individual in his erotic cave. Remember how I said the film was not that funny? Well, this part actually had me laughing for, you guessed it, the wrong reasons. It was not necessarily comedy gold. I was laughing at the movie rather than with it.
One thing that people seem to remember distinctly from the first film is the scene where M3GAN jumps around and dances. That moment is still ingrained in my mind and its memability is noticeable. In this sequel, the filmmakers appear to create a scene inspired by the roaring response that scene got. And quite frankly, it seems that is the only reason why that scene was put in the film. It felt kind of forced.
Speaking of memes, this movie introduces some new meme potential for the M3GAN character… She sings now. I do not want to spoil much about it, but I was so thrown off by this moment to preposterous levels. The moment that M3GAN sings is so out of left field that I would not have been surprised if at one point Lady Gaga’s Harley Quinn showed up in the background asking to perform a duet. It kind of reminded me of the musical planet from “The Marvels,” but at least that moment had some greater context and purpose in the story.
That said, I can somewhat appreciate the film’s commentary, which presents a double edge sword. Part of me wonders how this movie, and the more I think about it, the last one, is going to age. I saw the last movie as a warning that being too attached to your phone, or in some cases, your phone being too attached to you, can be dangerous. If anything, this film is a warning about artificial intelligence. You can argue the last film was as well, but this one feels stricter in that regard. It shows the dangers of advancing technology to a point where it could potentially kill us, and it may lead to an inevitability where we have to adapt to the technology being in our lives rather than ignoring it. As campy as these films occasionally come off, there are moments where they feel down to earth.
Unfortunately, the commentary feels like a downgrade from that of the original because as I said before, this film is not that scary. Part of what made the commentary work in the original movie is that it had a hand in the film’s scares. Here it is just littered throughout the script.
In a way, I can appreciate the crew behind “M3GAN 2.0” for trying something different rather than resorting to the same old tricks. I was looking forward to a more action-centered installment. But what makes this film different either felt too out there or simply put, poorly executed. As for what felt the same, it was kind of lame this time around. It does not matter if you try to go for something different or the same as before. If all of your material is bad, then it is bad. Plain and simple.
In the end, “M3GAN 2.0” was kind of disappointing. It is one of the weakest films of 2025. I was really looking forward to this film after the original turned out to be a delightful surprise. In a way one could say that this sequel was a surprise of its own, but not in the way that I would want it to be. The film differentiates from its predecessor in more ways than one. This is more of an action movie than a horror movie. But no matter what genre it shoots for, I simply wish it were a good movie. And unfortunately, it is not. I am going to give “M3GAN 2.0” a 3/10.
“M3GAN 2.0” 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 “F1: The Movie.” Stay tuned! Also, coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Superman” and “Guns Up.” 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 “M3GAN 2.0?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a sequel you enjoy that shifts its genre from the original? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 