“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is directed by Kogonada (Pachinko, After Yang) and stars Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street, Suicide Squad), Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin, Total Recall), Kevin Kline (Cyrano de Bergerac, Bob’s Burgers), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). This film is about two people who meet at a wedding and eventually go on a journey that leads both of them to revisiting their pasts.
The trailers for “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” did very little to excite me. I had the feeling the flick was going to either be too corny, overly sappy, or uneventful. In some ways, the final product falls in line with those expectations, but not exactly in the way that I thought they would. I am here to tell you that this movie is much better than I could have imagined, even if it is not perfect.
“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is not my kind of movie. When it comes to the many genres moviegoing has to offer, romantic dramas, in fact, even romantic comedies, are typically at the bottom of the list for me. I have nothing against the concept of romance, but as stereotypical of a guy thing as it is to say, I like my action. If I were not as open-minded about movies, chances are I would probably buy a ticket to “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” solely to impress a date. That said, I do not live in that reality, and I took my single behind and put it in a Dolby Cinema chair. Because who needs a date when you have shaking recliners?
Few things are as pleasing as a tremendous surprise, and “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” was in fact, a surprise. This film immersed me from the very beginning and refused to let me leave. They say not to judge a book by its cover, but this film proves that it is not about the destination, it is, in fact, about the big bold beautiful journey.
The film finds itself in this peculiarly fulfilling middle ground where it does not quite feel real, but there is a certain level of belief that I am willing to suspend in what is ultimately a grounded world. Yes, much of the film features a self-aware GPS that takes its characters to places that make them think about their lives. But the film is ultimately about the human condition. The experiences that shape us. The places that make us. The people that define us. It is about the unpredictable mess that is life. Judging by everything I am telling you, it sounds like I am hyping this up to be the movie of the year. That would be a bit of an overexaggeration, but I do appreciate how much the movie made me think.
I buy both of the leads in their respective roles. You have Colin Farrell as David… A reserved, hopeless romantic, trying to make it from one day to the next. Then there is Margot Robbie as Sarah, who has a bit more experience when it comes to the dating scene. Together you have a star-studded pair in a film that sounds too crazy to work, but somehow it does.
I am not going to pretend that everything works. One can make the argument that the film is too convenient. It is a film that relies heavily on something happening at the right place at the right time, or at the wrong place at the wrong time. I mentioned I am able to suspend my disbelief to a certain degree, but I think that is something I think not every viewer is going to do. The movie often feels fantastical and I see how select viewers would find that to be a turnoff. In fact, one thing that turned me off at times were the moments we spend at a rental car facility. That’s when we see a cashier and a mechanic played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Kevin Kline, who are honestly not as whimsical and charming as this movie wants me to think they are. Also, this film maybe has one of the most obvious product placements of any film I’ve seen in 2025, with its inclusion of Burger King.
Yes, I know “War of the Worlds” is a big Amazon commercial, but would you really call that a movie?
The restaurant ends up playing a somewhat substantial role in the plot as both lead characters go there, bond, share what they have in common, and once the leads are done there, that’s where the real fun begins for them. Nothing ignites romance like Whoppers!
Years ago, I reviewed a movie, if you want to call it that, by the name of “Superintelligence,” and this film reminds me of that one, as the protagonist’s journey is heavily guided by a computer, but there is a key point that this film gets right that “Superintelligence” does not. As I watched the film’s protagonist, David, I got the sense that he was often hesitant or second-guessing himself at each point of his journey. Despite some of his actions being determined by a computer, it often feels like he is presented with constantly engaging dilemmas. Should he go where the computer is taking him or should he go elsewhere? Should he perhaps go home?… As I watched the film, I wanted to know how these dilemmas were resolved.
You may be under the impression that the film’s biggest selling point would be one of it’s stars, like Colin Farrell. He is a great actor, but no. You might think it is Margot Robbie. Despite being a straight white male, she did not sell me either. Instead, what got me in the door was this film’s composer, Joe Hisaishi.
Some of you might be wondering who the heck I am talking about. And I would understand that reaction because this is Hisaishi’s first Hollywood feature he’s ever composed. That said, if you have watched Japanese film, or every film from anime director Hayao Miyazaki, you have heard his music, and each piece is often as inviting as his last. His compositions in this film are not exactly the most booming or epic pieces, nor do they need to be. Just about each one comes with a cozy vibe. Hisaishi delivers the goods here with several soothing tunes.
One last note, the GPS in this film is voiced by Jodie Turner-Smith. The role does not require a lot of pizazz or physical work. It is ultimately just a voiceover, but Turner-Smith gives it her all. The two most prominent characters are those of David and Sarah, but if this film had one character just below them in terms of importance, it would probably be the GPS, and Jodie Turner-Smith does her best to allow the character to ooze personality. It puts the film in the right direction.
…
I said, it puts the film in the right dire–(some dude tackles me to the ground and slaps me in the face)
In the end, “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is surprisingly solid. Margot Robbie and Colin Farrell have enough star power to keep an entire solar system running by themselves, but together, they have solid chemistry. I buy these two as they revisit various points of their lives. I thought they were cute together. Is this a film I plan to watch again anytime soon? Not immediately, but this is not a bad flick by any means. It is also a decent pick for a date movie. I am going to give “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” a 7/10.
“A Big Bold Beautiful Journey” is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Him!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Eleanor the Great,” “The Lost Bus,” “One Battle After Another,” “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” “Tron: Ares,” and “Bone Lake.” 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 “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey?” What did you think about it? Or, what two actors would you like to see play a couple on screen together? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Paddington in Peru” is directed by Dougal Wilson and this is his feature film debut. The film stars Hugh Bonneville (The Monuments Men, Downton Abbey), Emily Mortimer (The Pink Panther, The Newsroom), Julie Waters (Mamma Mia!, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone), Jim Broadbent (Bridget Jones’s Diary, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), Carla Tous (30 Coins, El hombre del saco), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), and Ben Whislaw (Skyfall, Fargo). This film is the third installment to the “Paddington” film franchise, where Ben Whislaw once again voices the title character. The film dives into Paddington’s adventurous journey to reunite with his Aunt Lucy, who now lives at the home for retired bears in Peru.
Two similar phrases I notice myself use sometimes as a film fan are “better than it should be” or “better than it has any right being.” Those two phrases very much apply to the current “Paddington” movies. Sure, these movies might appeal to kids, but just like I often say about Pixar titles, they are presented in such a way where they also have a lot for adults to enjoy. I watched both “Paddington” titles leading up to this one earlier this year. I have heard nothing but good things about both, and boy do they live up to the hype. Ben Whislaw adorably voices the lead role. The rest of the cast has perfect chemistry and all play their parts well. The atmosphere of these films do a great job at adding an enhanced otherworldliness to real life locations. The films somehow get you to buy that an animated bear lives with a large human family.
That said, I did maintain a notable nerve with “Paddington in Peru.” The director of the past couple movies, Paul King, is not in the chair this time around. Dougal Wilson is helming this project instead. As someone who is sometimes resistant to change, it was something lingering in my mind upon this film’s release. Thankfully, my nerves were rid of by the time the film got into gear because this film maintains the tone, atmosphere, and therapeutic nature of the previous “Paddington” installments. I did not know this was Wilson’s first film. But having seen it, I would love to see more from work from him. Heck, if he wanted to do a sequel to this movie, I would not be against it.
Is “Paddington in Peru” as good as the Paul King installments? No. It is a step down. But it is a step down in the same way that I see “Inside Out 2” as a step down from its predecessor. “Inside Out” is so masterfully made that whatever came after it had big shoes to fill. While “Inside Out 2” was good, it was nowhere near the level of the original. In fact, one similarity I will note between these sequels is that these latest films do not pack as much emotional weight as their predecessors. I will forever cherish the ending to “Paddington 2.” It has become a new favorite of mine because not only is it earned, but it almost broke me. There is nothing in this film as emotionally charging as that scene. This does not mean the film itself lacks emotion, it just does not have as much.
In addition to emotion, the film has laughs and adventure. This is a great watch for the entire family, but also maintains a balance between being overly mature and overly childish. Pardon the incoming bear pun, but when it comes to finding a balance for all audiences. The film is “just right.”
“Paddington in Peru” is a solid trilogy capper that understands its characters, its vibes, and successfully progresses the universe into a direction that is bigger than what came before. Bigger does not necessarily mean better in this case, but this film in terms of scope, sometimes feels more epic than the last two. At times, the film has an “Indiana Jones” feel. Not only because of the adventurous structure, but also likely because the film mainly takes place in the jungle. As a bonus, there is a scene involving a giant boulder.
One of the most crucial aspects many movies must balance is a sense of realism combined with suspension of disbelief. The “Paddington” movies do a great job at this, and this one is no exception. One example of this involves Olivia Colman’s character, the Reverend Mother, a happy go lucky, singing, guitar-playing nun who lives in the middle of the Peruvian Jungle. Unsurprisingly, Colman kills it here. She is so dynamic and hyperactive to the point where every scene of hers is a highlight. She makes you believe that someone as over the top like her can exist in a world much like ours.
Going back to what I said about change, turns out the director was not the only change behind the scenes. While Mary Brown (right) from the previous movies does return here, Sally Hawkins has been replaced with another actor, Emily Mortimer. While watching the film, I did not know Hawkins was replaced, but when I look at the two actors side by side I could barely see a difference. Mortimer maintains the welcoming, calm feel Hawkins previously brought to the role and gives a solid performance in her own right. I would love to watch all three of these movies back to back one day and see how these two performances compare as a whole. Although upon my first impression, I have no complaints regarding Emily Mortimer’s portrayal of Mary Brown.
That said, Hugh Bonneville does come back as Henry Brown (right center), and while I think his presence here is probably the weakest of the three movies, I still think Bonneville himself plays the role nicely. I am glad to see him come back. The film tends to dive into Henry’s risk aversion. I thought that was handled well and brought a decent load of conflict into the character’s path.
I see this franchise in the same way that I see some of my favorite sitcoms like “Seinfeld” or “The Big Bang Theory.” Story is arguably the most important aspect of any movie. But even if the story comes off as an afterthought, which for the record, it does not here, I would keep coming back to the “Paddington” movies just to hang out with the characters. Paddington himself is a bundle of joy. The supporting human characters are all likable. The antagonistic roles in this film are some of the best parts of the movie. I would watch a fourth “Paddington” film just to see where these characters go next. If you are under a lot of stress or you want to forget about the troubles of the world, the “Paddington” movies, including this one, are a solid option to pass the time.
The film also looks beautiful. This should not come as a major surprise considering a lot of it takes place in the Peruvian jungle, but the color palette, much like the last two films, has this slight homey gloss to it. Many of the river shots, the tree shots, and anything else related to the jungle environment are pleasing to the eyes. Erik Wilson, who shot the last two “Paddington” movies, comes back to shoot this one, and he follows up those two with another gorgeously framed spectacle.
Also, when the credits roll, do not get out of your chair. There is an extra scene. If you are familiar with these movies, it is a nice little addition that would be worth your time.
In the end, “Paddington in Peru” is the worst of the “Paddington” movies. But like the “Toy Story” franchise, even the weakest film, in my case the fourth one, is worth a watch. The film is a fine-looking, exquisitely presented, well-oiled machine of happiness. Feeling down? Watch this movie. I am not a doctor, but I watch a lot of movies. This is simply my professional advice. The film has the vibe of a glorified Saturday morning cartoon that also feels down to earth. I am looking forward to seeing what Dougal Wilson does next as a director. If “Paddington” continues, I will go to the cinema to support it. The franchise is 3 for 3 so far. I am going to give “Paddington in Peru” a 7/10.
“Paddington in Peru” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Love Hurts,” “The Brutalist,” and “I’m Still Here.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Paddington in Peru?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Paddington” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Kraven the Hunter” is directed by J.C. Chandor (A Most Violent Year, Margin Call) and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Gladiator II), Alessandro Nivola (Amsterdam, Jurassic Park III), Christopher Abbott (Girls, The Sinner), and Russell Crowe (Thor: Love and Thunder, Gladiator). This film is about Sergei Kravinoff, AKA Kraven the Hunter, and explores his complex relationship with his father in addition to how he uses his hunting skills to find targets and seek revenge.
Have you guys ever heard the saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,”? That phrase could almost apply to my experience with the Sony Spider-Man Universe. Note the use of the word almost. I say this because I basically go to see Sony’s Spider-Man villain standalone films out of obligation. Very rarely do I look forward to these movies. I think the closest I got to actually looking forward to one of these movies was “Morbius,” which ended up being my worst film of 2022. Although now that I think about it, I was intrigued by at least one trailer for “Venom: Let There be Carnage” before it came out. At least there is that.
For those playing catchup, let me give you the rundown so far on my thoughts on all the movies in the Sony Spider-Man universe… First “Venom” movie… Terrible! A lot of people seem to think it is okay. I think it is one of the most bland, boring, and horribly polished comic book movies ever made. Second “Venom” movie… Actually, pretty good. I thought the action was fun, it ups the one good thing about the original movie, specifically the humor. And it contains maybe the greatest PG-13 f-bomb in cinematic history. “Morbius…” A big fat joke! Other than Jared Leto’s performance and parts of the first act, there is nothing redeeming about this film. Oh yeah, let’s not forget that the marketing lied to its audience and the film may be responsible for the most tacked on and abysmal end credits scenes of all time. “Madame Web…” somehow WORSE than “Morbius!” Not even big name actors can save this abomination! Also, for some reason, this schlock saw the light of day despite being written by the same team who wrote “Morbius.” Bad dialogue, okay at best action, horrible camerawork, and another case of deceptive marketing. Genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen, and if you think I am saying this for dramatic effect, I have some magic beans to sell you. And lastly, “Venom: The Last Dance…” Safe to say, I was immensely bored. Other than the chemistry between Eddie and the titular character on top of one admirable motivation between them, I thought this threequel was a waste of time. Add on a whole Area 51 subplot that nearly put me to sleep, then you have a recipe for, surprisingly, the second best Sony Spider-Man Universe movie. How sad.
Thus far, the Sony Spider-Man Universe, or whatever you want to call it at this point, is one for five. People say the recently finished DCEU sucks compared to the MCU? Oh, boy oh boy, this universe WISHES it were the DCEU! That universe has cinematic bangers like “Wonder Woman” and “The Suicide Squad!” The DCEU even spawned the incredible TV series “Peacemaker!” While definitely inconsistent, when that cinematic universe fired on all cylinders, it was on the right track. But “Kraven the Hunter” had something attached to it that the other movies did not… An R rating! Yeah! That “Morbius” nonsense? That is for babies! Now it is daddy’s turn! If “Deadpool” can get away with an R, so can “Kraven!”
Having seen the movie, it may be able to get away with an R, but it certainly is not getting away from my infinite rage. This is yet another epic fail for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. Though am I really surprised?
Sony, how many times do we have to do this same old song and dance before it becomes stale? I think this is a great question.
…If I were an imbecile!
This whole Sony Spider-Man Barrel of Monkeys was already stale from the first of these wannabe “Spider-Man” flicks. I ask this question specifically to you guys. Genuinely! What on earth are you doing?! What is it going to take for this saga of nonsense to end?! I understand that the rights to “Spider-Man” are your most valuable asset, but if you keep making movies like these, then this whole property is going to be a joke. Tom Holland is not going to be playing the character forever. The “Spider-Verse” series can only go on for so long. You can only do so many crossovers involving the three live-action Spider-Men before they stop acting. The solution is not to continue making cheap, boring anti-hero movies featuring villains as the main character. Movies like “Kraven the Hunter” justify cases where movies like “Batgirl” get scrapped by the studio for a tax write-off.
Honestly, if someone popped me the question as to which movie I would want to watch more, and I had to pick between the first “Venom” and “Kraven the Hunter,” I might go with “Venom!” At least in “Venom,” you had some occasional funny lines and some decent chemistry between the two main characters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is clearly giving the lead role his all here. But he does not have a great script to back him up. While Aaron Taylor-Johnson is playing the lead role, he is not even the most high profile actor on the roster. The film also features Russell Crowe, and I think it is safe to say that I was not entertained by his completely one-dimensional so-called character. Crowe plays Kraven’s father, and not only is he unworthy of even a Dollar Tree card on Father’s Day, but he has incredibly repetitive, cliche dialogue. The movie clearly establishes him as far from the finest father figure. That seems to be the point at times. But I cared so little about the story and characters of this film to the point where Crowe’s character comes off as a joke.
Then you have Ariana DeBose, who is one of the most dynamic, lively, energetic talents working today. The woman in the past couple years deservedly won an Academy Award for “West Side Story.” She was also pretty good in other films following that, even if they did not get the best reviews. Unpopular opinion, I really liked “Wish…” I said what I said. DeBose, to my shock and amazement, plays one of the most forgettable core characters of a comic book film I have ever seen. If you were to ask me what the purpose of this character was in a few years from now, I will probably refer to her as the boring tarot card lady or something, because while her presence serves the story, it does so in maybe the dullest way possible. Shoutout to Sony for making two movies in the same year that somehow made me give me even less of a crap about tarot cards than I already do. Anybody remember the film “Tarot” from earlier this year? No? If you are loyal to this blog you will hear about it again soon on the top 10 worst movies of 2024 list once I get finished with that. You know, kind of like this atrocity some like to call a comic book movie.
Going back to what I said about “Madame Web” and how a big name cast could not save the film from being bad. I think “Kraven the Hunter” somehow takes that inferiority to another level. Because yes, Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney have been in big projects. Some good, some bad. That is the classic life of an actor, but they are both lucky enough to achieve their level of fame. Sweeney has been nominated for a couple Primetime Emmys so congrats to her. That said, “Kraven the Hunter” is much more excruciating to think about because while “Madame Web’s” Sweeney has gotten some awards attention, “Kraven” has multiple actors who have actually have prestigious awards on their mantle.
Again, you have Russell Crowe who has an extended career, an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, and two Golden Globes. Circling back to Ariana DeBose, it was like watching Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy in “Batman & Robin,” but worse. Because while Thurman was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in “Pulp Fiction,” a couple years before that flopbuster came out, DeBose actually WON her Academy Award. I do not think DeBose’s performance is Razzie-worthy. There is nothing extreme about it that makes it stand out as one of the worst performances of all time. The best word I can use to describe it would be “tiring.” I guess that is one reason to watch this movie again. If I am really tired and want to catch some z’s, “Kraven the Hunter” might make for solid background noise.
I will be fair to Crowe, however. As infuriating as his character is to watch, I must admit he makes the most of a crappy script with his chops. Crowe does his best with the material to the point where I almost cannot imagine anyone else in his role. So… Yay?…
Another actor I enjoyed watching in this hot mess? Aaron Taylor-Johnson. No, it is not because of his abs. He legit does an okay job as the lead. Again, his character is not written well. But I buy him in the role. He is not perfect, but he definitely has an inkling of charisma. I just wish such charisma were saved for something that would not be a waste of my time and money. That is another consistency with these Sony movies. As much as I do not like “Venom,” I still think Tom Hardy is well cast as the lead role. Same goes for Jared Leto in “Morbius.”
For those of you who saw the first eight minutes of the movie when it dropped online, you would know it starts off with, admittedly, a halfway decent action sequence. That adjective might as well be used to describe a good amount of the action in this film. The action does not reinvent the wheel. There are a couple cuts that I thought were a little too quick, but for the most part, the action is one of the better parts of the movie. “Kraven the Hunter” sometimes finds its footing in some places, but when it comes to structure, that is definitely not one of those places. Sure, the movie starts off with a decent action scene that could likely hook viewers into the story. But then we get to the part of the film that dives into Kraven’s origins. The timing of this transition feels abrupt and out of place. Given the length of these moments and how long it deviates from what we already saw in Kraven’s adulthood, I would have preferred for the final cut of the film to start with Kraven’s origins. It would allow me to more easily know and understand the characters that way if we were to get to an action sequence like the one we see at the beginning, I would probably care a little more about the people in the scene and possibly the sequence itself.
I will give props to Sony for not hiring Mark Sazama and Burk Sharpless to write this film. Although to be fair, they were probably already busy figuring out how to beat the odds and make a worse screenplay for “Madame Web” than they did for “Morbius.” Spoiler alert, they did. Instead, this film has three writers. You have Richard Wenk, known for writing the “Equalizer” movies starring Denzel Washington. I have not watched those films, but I have heard good things. His resume contains some other notable work, but oddly enough, I cannot give my opinion on any of his titles because I never watched any of them. As for the other two writers, you have Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. These are two of the four writers responsible for one of the better Marvel Cinematic Universe films, “Iron Man.” Although the rest of their resume is not particularly great. There is “Men in Black: International,” which I actually liked. But there are also a lot of people who would challenge my unpopular opinion. They just did “Uncharted,” which has a couple cool action scenes, but the screenplay has nothing that stands out about it. The film itself is rather unmemorable. Then we travel back in time to my least favorite movie of theirs, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” My biggest problem with the film is with the headache-inducing use of IMAX technology that honestly leaves no one but Michael Bay to blame. But if I had another notable problem, it is that the film’s script repeats the problems of the previous movies, but somehow delivers maybe the least engaging journey the franchise has given yet. Going back even further to a movie I did not see, these two even did “Punisher: War Zone,” which was not only poorly reviewed, but with more than $10 million total, it made less money at the box office than any other movie based on Marvel Comics. Part of me is convinced that Sony could be having a streak of bad luck, but then I look at the resumes of the people they hire and I think either their options are limited, they are choosing the wrong people, or they have better options out there and do not want to spend more money on them. I have no clue.
In all seriousness though, this trio of writers managed to join forces to create one of the most snore-inducing films of the year. I do not think there is any way to sugarcoat this. It is also full of Academy Award-level lines like “I’m a hunter.” In addition to Russell Crowe repeatedly telling his boys, and therefore the audience, that their mother died and she was weak. As I watched this movie and came to realize the director and cast handled their material, I honestly thought “Kraven the Hunter” has a feel that is kind of similar to “The Room.” I say kind of because unlike “The Room,” the chances of me ever watching “Kraven the Hunter” again are pretty slim. But this is a movie that I can honestly watch, acknowledge how bad it is, and sometimes burst out laughing for the wrong reasons. If you want a more genre-related example, I will go back to the recently mentioned “Batman & Robin.” It definitely makes me laugh, but the humor sometimes feels accidental.
You know the Island of Misfit Toys from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?” If there were ever a place I could associate with this universe, that would be it. I assume most inhabitants, or in this case, filmmakers, actors, producers, crew, etc., that make it up are kind, but compared to the toys Santa delivers to kids on Christmas, which in this case would be Disney’s MCU and Warner Brothers’ DCEU, Sony’s got its own little private island full of outcasts. I have not gone back to watch a single Sony Spider-Man Enigmaverse movie since seeing them in the theater, other than “Venom: Let There be Carnage” when it was airing one time on cable. It is like that scene from “Toy Story 2” where Andy picks up Woody and says he does not want to play with him anymore, except in this case, the toy is fresh out of the box and has barely been used.
This is why I ask Sony not to sell the rights to “Spider-Man…” I really want to see them pump out that third “Spider-Verse” movie. Instead I would like Sony to stop with these standalone villain spinoffs. These are not movies, these are corporate products designed by people trying to fill a release slot and keep the rights just a while longer. “Kraven the Hunter” is the latest example of this. If you are looking for Spider-Man connections in this film, all you are getting are secondary characters who appear in various Spider-Man properties who are poorly executed, and one scene where a ton of spiders are on screen. It is not even a good scene! Spider-Man is not in this movie. Peter Parker is not in this movie. Although the Rhino is in this movie. This time around is better than how the character was presented in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but that does not really say much.
Speaking of which, let’s talk about the CGI… This movie is chock-full of distractingly noticeable visuals. Going back to Rhino, that is one example. You can definitely tell he has fake skin, but I would not even consider that the worst CGI in this film. This film has multiple scenes containing animals, including a lion I thought looked somewhat artificial, but at most I would consider to be tolerable. The animals that stood out to me the most in terms of how offputting they looked are the buffalo. And there are a lot of them in this movie. There is this scene where this buffalo is holding steady in front of Kraven. They are in the middle of a field. When that buffalo is staying still, all that allows me to do is take in as much detail as possible to realize that the creature looks like something out of a video game. When Kraven is looking at this buffalo, he comes off like he is staring at a picture instead of something live.
Sony, please. Just stop! I have had it up to here at this point! This year is the 100th anniversary of Columbia Pictures. When it comes to celebrating it, this, “Venom: The Last Dance,” and “Madame Web” were clearly not the best ways to do it on the Marvel front. I am thankful they brought all the old “Spider-Man” movies back to theaters. I went back to watch “Spider-Man 2” and “Spider-Man 3” in the theater this year. If for whatever reason Sony decides to do some anniversary screening for “Kraven the Hunter,” I am going to give it a hard pass.
In the end, “Kraven the Hunter” sucks. Plain and simple. It is a poorly structured, badly edited, laughably acted, shoddily directed misfire that I would not recommend to anyone. I will honestly watch “Venom: The Last Dance” three more times before turning this movie on again. Yes, there are positives. The action is okay. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a good choice to play Kraven. And even though Russell Crowe plays an unlikable character, he at least acts like he is giving two squirts of urine about his role. “Kraven the Hunter” is not a movie. It is a series of scenes spliced together by a corporation to continue preserving franchise rights. If this is the last movie we see in the Sony Spider-Man Insert Clever Name Here, good riddance. I am going to give “Kraven the Hunter” a 2/10.
“Kraven the Hunter” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” and “Flow.” 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 “Kraven the Hunter?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your 2024 comic book movies ranked? What a terrible question that must be… That is like ranking your children, and you are choosing your favorite child based on which one you find the least irritating. I will admit, I did not even see “The Crow” this year. I think I dodged a bullet with that one. That said, there were plenty of awful comic book films this year to make up for whatever that one would end up being. If you have a ranking, list your top movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Venom: The Last Dance” is directed by Kelly Marcel and this is her directorial debut. This film stars Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Mad Max: Fury Road), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Juno Temple (Fargo, Ted Lasso), Rhys Ifans (The Amazing Spider-Man, The King’s Man), Stephen Graham (Gangs of New York, Snatch), Peggy Lu (Always be My Maybe, Kung Pow: Enter the Fist), Clark Backo (The Changeling, Letterkenny), Alanna Ubach (Meet the Fockers, Legally Blonde), and Andy Serkis (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther). This film is the third installment in the “Venom” franchise and centers around the titular host and his human bud Eddie Brock as the they are on the run for the sake of survival and for the latter to clear his name.
If you are new to Scene Before, you would know I love comic book movies. I think the sub-genre has consistently entertained me for years, and in some cases, given me some of my favorite movies of all time like “The Suicide Squad” or “Avengers: Infinity War.” Those two movies are from different cinematic universes, specifically the Detective Comics Extended Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while the “Venom” movies are also based on Marvel characters, they are not a part of the mainline MCU. Well, sort of. That is unless you count that one scene in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” But as far as the “Venom” movies go, they are under Sony’s Spider-Man Universe, which interestingly, barely has Spider-Man in it. This cinematic universe has been responsible for turds in the wind like “Morbius” and “Madame Web.” If I were to make a worst films of the 2020s list right now, I guarantee you both of those will end up in the top 5. But for some reason, the one successful property in this universe is “Venom,” which I find kind of sad. Not just because it is massively outperforming its partner films, leaving them in the dust. But because if you want me to be honest with you, I do not find these films to be that great. Sure, I liked the second “Venom” movie. I will admit “Let There be Carnage” has its moments. That film delivers some okay action, has a lot of laughs, and the pacing is tightly knit. But the first “Venom?” I could never watch that movie again. I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them.
As far as “Venom: The Last Dance” goes, I do not find the film to be the worst of the trilogy. But that does not mean the movie is good. The film starts off okay. One highlight in particular involves Venom and Eddie fighting a bunch of dudes in a warehouse. That part was entertaining and I really enjoyed some of the gore delivered in that sequence. I thought another highlight was seeing Venom and Eddie hang on the side of a plane thousands of feet in the air. But there is not really anything else worth writing home about. For the most part, the movie is slow. Considering the tight pace of the previous installment, slow is probably the last word I would want to use when describing “Venom: The Last Dance,” but here we are. As for the villain in this film, I honestly almost did not care at all. So I guess you could say that the Sony Spider-Man Universe seems to be taking some inspiration from the much more successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, but maybe not in the way one would want them to.
Even though I think this whole trilogy has been a loss, I think the one win throughout all three films, if you can call it, is the bond between Eddie and Venom. We see Tom Hardy doing an okay job as both characters. And Venom in particular has always been funny. As much as I hated the first movie in this trilogy, I still laugh thinking about the one scene where Venom calls Eddie a “p****” for not jumping from a building and instead taking an elevator to leave. The two continue to have decent chemistry in this third installment. Unfortunately I do not think they are as funny as they were before. But I think when it comes to the duo’s aspirations in this film, that part was nice to see. We find out that Venom wants to go see the Statue of Liberty, and seeing that motivation play out was kind of wholesome. Granted, we find out at the beginning of the film that is not the only reason these two are going to New York, but it is nice to know that this alien character has these humanistic desires. You can tell that these two have grown to care about each other. I just wish the screenplay was more compelling. It lacks an oomph. It lacks a direction. It lacks a substance that makes the film exciting.
Remember Mrs. Chen from the previous movies? Well guess what? She is back! I will admit, when I saw the trailers for this film and I watched her character in context of what was given to me through said trailers, I was curious about what she would do in this film. Honestly though, she does not add much to the plot, the progression of the story, anything. She is literally just there for the sake of being there. Although this time instead of seeing her behind the counter of a convenience store, she makes a trip out to Las Vegas to party it up. She has a penthouse suite, she’s dressed like a queen, the whole nine yards. While I admittedly found Peggy Lu to give a somewhat memorable performance in the film, you could almost take her out and have the outcome of the film barely change at all. Her appearance in this film barely serves the story, and ultimately comes off as a distraction if anything. What happens in Vegas should certainly stay out of “Venom: The Last Dance.”
In my review for “Venom: Let There be Carnage,” I mentioned I had one notable moment that could be described as a guilty pleasure from that movie. Particularly the moment where Eddie and Venom are arguing and the whole thing results in this hilarious fiasco where Venom throws out Eddie’s TV. This leads to another scene some time later where we see a brand new Sony television that was clearly intended to be there for product placement purposes. After all, these movies are from Sony, so they have to show off their products somehow. This trend appears to continue in “Venom: The Last Dance,” but the product placement is likely not as obvious as the last time. For those who do not know, Sony owns “Wheel of Fortune.” When Eddie gets to a casino in Las Vegas, he walks to a Wheel of Fortune slot machine, a common staple at these places, and sits down. The scene at said slot machine is rather short, but sweet. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It is a somewhat accurate representation of the thrill, and agony of gambling. You see Eddie mashing the button like he’s learning how to play “Mortal Kombat,” Venom is getting a sudden sensation he has never experienced before, he goes on saying this is the greatest feeling he’s ever had. But it does not take long for them to hit a low, particularly running out of money. Venom prompts Eddie to smash the machine in rage. The scene delivers some laughs, and as someone who has enjoyed his time at the slot machine, and occasionally questioned myself for sitting down at one in the first place, this is a good representation of what it is like to gamble sometimes.
By the way, if the hooligans at Foxwoods Resort in Connecticut are reading this, give me my freaking money back that you guys snatched from me in September, NOW.
That said, one minor detail, they likely customized the “Wheel of Fortune” slot machine for this movie, because I cannot recall one time I have played those machines, or any others for that matter, and saw an enormous “YOU LOSE” graphic on those machines. I know gambling can be cruel, but they’re not exactly arcade games. The game is never over on slot machines, it just stops at a point until someone keeps it going.
Speaking of minor details, one of my biggest laughs in the movie is the likely the result of me spending way too much time looking into details on passenger airplanes. Yes, like some other people, I have had growing worries about flying certain Boeing aircrafts. But even before planes like the 737 MAX became a hot topic of concern, I knew about some models thanks to YouTube. There is a moment in “Venom: The Last Dance” where Eddie explains to Venom that the two latched off the exterior of a Boeing 757. It takes a bit for Venom to chime in about this, but at one point he shouts, “It was an Airbus A320!” I am by no means an air geek or planespotter, but I do have an appreciation for air travel. I think the whole process behind it and the way it is managed is sometimes a scam, but either way, that particular line made me lose it when Venom said it. Plus the fact that Venom shouted it with such certainty made the execution of the line come off as admirable as possible.
But the more I think about this “Venom” trilogy, the more I think these movies are the kinds that Martin Scorsese would look at and go, “Hard pass.” And you know what? Now that I have sat through all three of these monstrosities, I would be right there with him. To use Scorsese’s words, and I may sound like a hypocrite because this goes against what I said about the pacing earlier, “Venom: The Last Dance” undoubtedly has the pace of a theme park ride. You may be wondering if I am high right now. Just moments ago I said this movie was slow. What kind of theme park ride are we talking about? Well, if we were to talk about faster theme park rides like a roller coaster, such a pace is most evident when we are with Eddie and Venom. Whenever their presence is absent, “Venom: The Last Dance” becomes a complete and total snoozefest. The main duo’s connection kind of saves the movie in the same way it has done so in the franchise’s predecessors. Everything involving Area 51 was boring. Some of the characters in those scenes were not as compelling as maybe they could have been. They felt flat. They felt wooden. If anything, these movies somewhat remind me of the reality TV genre. This is not a comparison to every show within the genre, but if you watch certain reality shows you will notice how hyped up the main cast tends to get sometimes. When I think of this Venom trilogy, I think of the titular character’s voice. I think about how loud that voice can get in select scenes to the point where it drowns out all the other characters. Granted, sometimes it is appealing, but it does not change the fact that this movie feels like noise for the sake of noise.
Also, with this being the third installment of a trilogy, the film tries to go out on a note of finality. Or as Hollywood puts it, “The end… Until we make a billion dollars.” Unfortunately, the note of finality this movie tends to provide feels tacked on. Never once did I get any emotion between these two characters. Part of it is because this property is far from the gold standard of comic book movies, therefore I never had any attachment to these films to begin with. While I thought the second film is good, I think the first one is ridiculous garbage, and at the time, the worst “Spider-Man”-related film I had seen. Then came “Morbius,” then came “Madame Web…” Oh my god. This goddamn timeline. Sony, get your act together! Because I have had it! Either get people who care about these characters, or give the rights to somebody else! I could tell Tom Hardy is probably having a blast making these movies, but I cannot say I am having the best time watching them. They are barely good enough to be eye candy. And it is not even good eye candy. It is like eye candy that is a bit past its expiration date! It can still be edible, but is it really? It is honestly not that good. When I look at Venom in this movie and the many symbiotic creatures we end up seeing, it reminds me of the “Star Wars” prequels in a sense because if you remember those movies in comparison to the original trilogy, you would notice a significantly higher presence of lightsabers, and therefore lightsaber fights. When you look at the original trilogy, lightsabers felt special and were always used to serve the story. In the prequels, the lightsaber use sometimes comes off as an excuse to put said objects on the screen like they are jangling keys. Do not get me wrong, sometimes I was hypnotized by those jangling keys, but still.
My point is, when I look at all the symbiotic creatures, it makes the character of Venom feel less like a one of a kind, and perhaps as commonplace as a Dunkin’ location in New England. Venom does not feel special in this movie. Granted, in the previous films, he faced off against other symbiotic beings, but the count of symbiotic beings in those movies were minimal. There was still a novelty to the concept. You could almost argue that there are some story purposes to the number of creatures in this film, considering this film is set in Area 51. This “Venom” film is definitely going bigger than the previous two installments. Though in contrary to the common saying, bigger does not mean better. In this case, the movie is so big that it leaves me wondering how many of these creatures are in the movie for the sole purpose of selling toys. In fact, there are a couple times in this movie where I was looking at numerous characters or shifts the symbiote itself makes and in my head I’m going, “There’s a toy.” “There’s another toy.” “There’s a toy.” “There’s a Hot Toy.” “There’s an action figure.” “There’s a Funko Pop.” When the trailers showed off the Venomized horse, I was intrigued by how delightfully weird such a concept could be. And when that was shown in the movie, I thought it was fun to watch on screen. But for the most part, I kept looking at the symbiotic creatures and thought the whole idea was overdone by the climax of the film. Now I may sound like a hypocrite, because looking back at say the MCU’s “Iron Man 3,” I was thrilled when the climax went down and all the Iron Man suits showed up. But that was on top of an already engaging film containing characters I cared about and a story that moved along at a decent pace. The finale for “Iron Man 3” was the cherry on top of a sundae whereas the finale for “Venom: The Last Dance” felt like a bunch of creatures I did not care about facing off a threat I did not care about.
Could I watch “Venom: The Last Dance” if I were drunk? That is a question I personally find to be a bit tough to answer, mainly because I do not drink. Maybe this is why I hate these movies. Because I refuse the booze. But in all seriousness, as I look at “Venom: The Last Dance,” this is a movie that would probably be best watched in a setting that includes alcohol. Heck, part of the movie takes place in Vegas! Now you get to watch a movie about a guy and his alien pal going to a place where poor decisions are highly encouraged while also making some poor decisions right from your own couch. Although if you ask me, watching “Venom: The Last Dance” is already enough of poor decision.
In the end, “Venom: The Last Dance” is one of the worst films of the year. The film starts off average and just gets worse as it goes. This is just the latest comic book movie to come out in 2024 that I found to be a waste of time. If it were not for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” every comic book movie that came out this year would have been a dud. Now, it is hard to top the injustice that is “Madame Web,” and thankfully, “Venom: The Last Dance” is an improvement from that schlock. Is “Venom: The Last Dance” as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux?” Surprisingly, no. These are words I did not think I would be saying months ago! For one thing, despite there being more cons than pros in “Venom: The Last Dance,” it does have some entertainment value. There are some funny lines here and there. There are one or two decent action sequences. But it is not enough to make a good movie. The palette of the film is somewhat depressing. The moments that try to trigger your emotions did not get to me. I did not care for a lot of the supporting characters. And to my surprise, the film sometimes moves at a snail’s pace.
I genuinely hope, against all odds, that come December, “Kraven the Hunter” is a good movie. Because I have no faith in it at this point. And why should I have any faith in it? Literally the only film in this Sony Spider-Man Universe that has worked for me so far is “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” The first “Venom” was terrible. “Morbius” sucked. “Madame Web” is one of the worst films I have ever seen. For those of you who have comic book movie fatigue, I cannot relate. We clearly live in different worlds. Again, unpopular opinion I guess, I liked every MCU film since “Endgame.” If the MCU did not exist, and Sony’s stinkers were all that were coming out, there is a chance I could be asking for more quality products, or maybe I would be fatigued. This is supposedly the end of Eddie and Venom’s journey together, but there are future plans for the ongoing Sony Spider-Man Universe. As much as I am peeved at Sony for the state of said universe, I do not envy their position right now. Their most successful property is concluding, and now they supposedly have the comic book movie equivalent of the Island of Misfit Toys to play with. Honestly, if “Kraven the Hunter” is a complete bust, I would not be shocked if Tom Holland never stops playing “Spider-Man.” You think Disney is going to make Hugh Jackman play Wolverine until he’s 90? Ha! Fat chance! Watch what Sony is going to make Tom Holland do with “Spider-Man” if their other projects continue to fail.
I mean… At least there is “Spider-Verse.” That seems to be kicking butt right now.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is the first film directed by Kelly Marcel, and should she continue to direct movies, I hope they are more successful than this. I wish her nothing but the best. But unfortunately, when it comes to comic book movies, “Venom: The Last Dance” is far from the best. I am going to give “Venom: The Last Dance” a 4/10.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” Also coming soon, the next installment in my Election Days review series, I will be reviewing “On the Basis of Sex,” which is about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Venom: The Last Dance?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Venom” movie? For me, the answer is easily “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” But what about you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Saturday Night” is directed by Jason Reitman (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Juno) and stars Gabriel LaBelle (Snack Shack, The Fabelmans), Rachel Sennott (Bottoms, Bodies Bodies Bodies), Cory Michael Smith (Call Jane, 1985), Ella Hunt (Dickinson, Cold Feet), Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Maze Runner), Emily Fairn (Mary & George, The Responder), Matt Wood (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Difficult People), Lamorne Harris (Call Me Kat, New Girl), Kim Matula (LA to Vegas, The Bold and the Beautiful), Finn Wolfhard (It, Stranger Things), Nicolaus Braun (Zola, Succession), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza, Wildcat), Andrew Barth Feldman (No Hard Feelings, A Tourist’s Guide to Love), Kaia Gerber (Bottoms, American Horror Stories), Tommy Dewey (Casual, The Mindy Project), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Matthew Rhys (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, The Post), and JK Simmons (Spider-/Man, Whiplash). This film is a showcase of the chaotic 90 minutes leading up to the production of the first episode of “Saturday Night Live.”
People look at “Saturday Night Live” today with a mix of opinions. Of course, when a television series of its notability has been around for several decades, chances are that not everyone is going to have the same thoughts on it, and there may be moments some find to be better than others. I often find myself going back and watching the series’ gutbusting “Celebrity Jeopardy!” bits with Norm MacDonald as Burt Reynolds and Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery. Those sketches are comedy gold and I find myself quoting it on a regular basis. I have even used one of those bits as part of my Film Improvements segment during the 5th Jack Awards. But the movie “Saturday Night” dives into a time long before that when the show had its humble beginnings. The film has a star-studded cast including Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, and Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster just to name a few people. Audiences of all kinds know the names of these characters today, but this movie is kind of an underdog story about a bunch of nobodies. One of the most positive things I can say about “Saturday Night” is that it easily gets me to root for its cast to do anything and everything they can just to make it on the air by 11:30. The film definitely has a Hollywoodized feel to it at times, but I think it works because some of the hyped up situations definitely add to the entertainment of everything on screen.
For those who do not know, since 2023 I have worked in live television, particularly local news. So while I might say the film “Broadcast News” is sometimes more specifically reflective of my work environment, even though that movie came out years before I was born, “Saturday Night” also does a great job at encapsulating the vibe of working in a live production. This film dives into the first episode of “Saturday Night Live,” but I must say as someone who has been working in local news for almost a couple years now, even when the formula may be familiar, there have been times that feel as if we are making a live broadcast for the first time. After all, there is so much that has to be done for several shows in a single streak of hours. Therefore, something down the line is bound to screw itself up. It is unavoidable. Sometimes it is my fault. Sometimes it is someone else’s bad. Sometimes it is a technical problem. But one thing I will note about my job is that we are lucky that we have a schedule that is set in stone. Sure, not everything goes right, but there is a lot that does. We have a history of shows behind us, and planned broadcasts for the hours ahead. We have a good team of people who all do their job as best as they can and offer excellent results. But our crew in “Saturday Night” learns that they are potentially going to be sidelined by a rerun for “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.” They might not even have a first broadcast.
There are so many things that this crew has to deal with in just a span of 90 minutes… Making sure the entire cast is ready to go. Convincing John Belushi to tolerate being in costume. Figuring out what to cut for time. Standing outside the building and trying to get people to join a live studio audience. Trying to sell the show to various affiliates. This entire film is a stress streak from start to finish. It is anxiety-inducing. The movie contains a moment or two that allow the audience audience to breathe. There are slower moments in the movie, but even in those scenes there is a sense of everlasting tension. There is a wonder if certain wrongs will be made right.
I mentioned this film has a star-studded cast, so chances are you are going to recognize at least one name on the list. But my favorite performance in the film is from Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase. From the moment I witnessed this son of a gun fall to the floor, get back up, and so casually utter the words, “Sorry, tripped over my penis,” I knew we were in for something special. Even though he has a legacy, I have heard about some of the controversy surrounding Chase, such as when he was on “Community.” Having heard about that almost makes this movie, and this particular performance, just a tad funnier. Although that makes me wonder how this movie will sit with certain people, because it reminds me of how hyper-obsessively knowing about certain comic book movie news stories over the years made me appreciate “Deadpool & Wolverine” in a way that I imagine some people would not. It makes me question how well the movie will age.
Also, Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels is a superb pick. This is a young, fresh actor who I would guess not everybody knows at this point, and I think some people will still not know a few months later, but I hope this review helps a soul or two get to know him, because he is talented. Michaels is the center of this rollercoaster of a film, and you can tell that in every single frame, he is nervous about whatever crazy derailment could come up. And those nerves rubbed off on me. This is a young guy with a lot of potential. But the thing about potential is that not everyone has seen it. Even though this is based on events that happened and I had an idea of how things in this movie would go, I was rooting for Michaels and crew to unleash said potential by the end of the film.
I also want to bring up the ending of the film. It is one of those endings that had me perplexed, yet satisfied. Because it comes out of nowhere, but it also closes on a note where anything after it is practically bonus content. The main story finishes by the time we get to said ending, but it comes at me like a bullet. It feels jarring. Given time to marinate though, I love what they did with the ending. I will not go into detail for those wanting to see the movie, but between the timing of the dialogue and the credits music, I am having a hard time imagining this movie capping things off better than it did. On the note of the music though, Jon Batiste, who actually has some recent variety TV experience as the bandleader on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” for seven years, does the score for “Saturday Night,” and it is perfect. At times it is subtle, but it is almost a character of its own in the film. Just thinking about parts of it gives me chills and nerves.
One good question to ask is whether this movie is a good watch for people who for whatever reason, have not seen an episode or sketch from “Saturday Night Live.” I think this film will definitely land harder for those who have seen some of the sketches, some of the episodes. That is for sure. But I think those who have not seen “Saturday Night Live” can still get plenty of laughs out of this film. Because if you have not picked it up already, this is not “Saturday Night Live” in movie form. It is not like “Jackass” or “Impractical Jokers,” two shows starring real people that end up taking their show’s format and converting it into a feature film. This is not this generation’s version of “Movie 43” so to speak… This is instead a buildup into how “Saturday Night Live” became what it is. This is, again, an underdog story, and I think a lot of people can appreciate those. And of course, there’s laughs, there’s tension, there’s a lot of big stars. Heck, JK Simmons makes an appearance in this movie, which I was not expecting at all. And I really was not expecting him to be cast in the kind of role in which he was picked to play. At one point he is just dancing like a moron, and he plays it up so well that I am laughing not because of the physical movements, but the guy doing said physical movements. I often pick apart animated movies nowadays for an overreliance on star power, but this is a movie that uses star power like few others I have seen recently, and I would say it does a great job with it. The cast is stacked and everyone plays their part to a T.
Maybe you know the names Kaia Gerber or Willem Dafoe or Dylan O’Brien. But what makes this movie is not the stars, it is the compelling narrative, ferocious pace, and laugh out loud funny comedy that honestly could match the feeling of a watching a spectacular “Saturday Night Live” episode at home on your couch or on your bed.
In the end, “Saturday Night” is an utter delight. I absolutely loved this movie. Granted, I am a bit biased because I work in live television so it kind of reminded me of the environment in which find myself on a regular basis. These are for two very different programs, but when putting two and two together, I found some commonalities. This was a movie that from scene one takes you on a ride, and I did not want it to end. That said, when it did end, I was satisfied and infatuated with what I saw. Does it sometimes feel hyperbolic in its execution? Perhaps. That’s probably my biggest critique, but the movie still works with that feeling intact sometimes. “Saturday Night” has the vibe, filmmaking style, and comedic flair of “The Disaster Artist,” but it uses those ideas and presents them in a movie with the pacing of “Speed” starring Keanu Reeves. I am going to give “Saturday Night” a 9/10.
For those sticking around, I wanted to end on this note because what I am about to say was intended as a part of the review, but it ultimately become a bit of a tangent. Nevertheless, I am proud of it. So I kept it here for you all to read.
This film is led by Gabriel LaBelle, who is still in the early days of his career, but he is proving himself to be a fine talent. But I am impressed by his luck, if you can call it that, in terms of his resume. Because a couple years ago he starred as the lead of “The Fabelmans,” which is an excellent movie by the way. For those who did not see the movie, it is directed by Steven Spielberg and is loosely based on his life. In that film’s case, LaBelle ends up playing a version if you will of Spielberg in his youth. Now, he has gone from playing one of the most iconic filmmakers of all time to playing perhaps one of the most impactful TV creators of all time. I would not imagine people today know Lorne Michaels like they know the name Steven Spielberg, but it does not change the fact that Lorne Michaels has become one of variety TV’s staples over the years. Whatever your definition of variety TV is, I will leave that up to you. However, to this day, “Saturday Night Live” is still doing weekly episodes. NBC’s “Late Night” format is still kicking with Seth Meyers at this point, who I would say is doing a very good job. I particularly think his “A Closer Look” segments are well timed and always end on a high note. It makes me wonder what is next for LaBelle. Is he going to take on notable game show hosts next and play young Alex Trebek? I think he’d do an okay job with that. They’re both Canadian! Just an idea! Heck, he could probably play Bob Eubanks! Peter Tomarkan! I could even see him as Pat Sajak! LaBelle has chops, I am just saying!
“Saturday Night” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis,” his passion project which has now been in theaters for several weeks. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance.” 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 “Saturday Night?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Saturday Night Live” sketch? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“It Ends with Us” is directed by Justin Baldoni (My Last Days, Five Feet Apart) who also stars in the film as Ryle Kincaid. The film also stars Blake Lively (The Shallows, Gossip Girl), Jenny Slate (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Marcel the Shell with Shoes On), Hasan Minhaj (Babes, The Daily Show), and Brandon Sklenar (The Big Ugly, 1923). This movie is about a woman whose relationship with her neurosurgeon becomes upended when someone she previously dated reenters her life.
If there is a duo that ruled this summer for movies, it would have to be Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman for their blockbuster hit “Deadpool & Wolverine.” But Ryan Reynolds is not the only one in his family making dough at the box office this summer. While not quite up to the $1.3 billion “Deadpool & Wolverine” has raked in so far, Blake Lively’s “It Ends with Us” is doing very well for itself. So far, it is past the $300 million mark on a $25 million budget. Frankly though, I am kind of surprised, because this is a movie that if I were an executive, I would second guess myself before letting it into theaters during mid-summer. Not that such a thing could be impossible, but it deals with a subject matter as serious as domestic violence. While there is romance, humor, and a recognizable name like Blake Lively, August would not have been my first choice when it comes to an appropriate time to release this film.
The fact is, I am not a woman. Instead, I am, not that it matters, as straight and white of a male as you can get. But I was nevertheless intrigued by the buzz this movie seemed to be getting, even if some of it seems to be due to its controversial marketing campaign. Having seen the movie, I can say that it was a decent watch. Was it perfect? By no means. In fact, a lot of the dialogue is cheesy, though nowhere as bad as a by the numbers romcom like “Anyone But You,” a movie that strictly made money because it was a rare film released at the year’s end that put stylistic sex appeal over substantive Oscar bait. In fact, even the movie’s characters know how cheesy its own script is at times. The film’s main character literally says so when she is introducing herself to the love interest! For those who have not seen this movie or read its respective source material, the main character’s name is Lily Bloom, and interesting enough, she is a florist! But there is also a balance when it comes to the script’s tones that just so happens to bind together. At times, the movie is cute. At others, it is funny. At others, it is serious. All of these elements are handled with care.
As for that last element, that is where this movie’s issue of domestic violence comes in.
I would like to make another thing clear, and maybe this will once again make me the last person you’d want to be talking about this movie, I have never had a girlfriend. I have never been in a relationship. I have, thankfully, been on neither end of a domestically violent relationship. I am not going to pretend I am an expert on the subject, nor should I tell others how to handle such a matter. All I can lend is my opinion on how the movie handles it. As for how the matter is handled in “It Ends with Us,” I was surprised to find that it comes off as kind of tame. Now do not get me wrong, domestic violence is a serious issue. And the movie, effectively, presents it as such.
The MPA has officially rated this film PG-13. Not the lowest rating of the bunch, but certainly not the highest. There is a lot that you can get away with in a PG-13 movie. Though like many other PG-13 flicks, the movie does only limit itself to one f-bomb. But as I watched the scenes where the relationship becomes dangerously physical, the violence is never over the top or graphic. I honestly do not mind this choice because I am trying to think about this from the perspective of someone who has dealt with a relationship like the one this movie presents. Would over the top violence or a little extra blood be too much for some people? Chances are that could be the case. This is a movie that gets its message across by showing people the wrongs of this couple’s relationship without overplaying said wrongs for a horrid, disturbing dramatic effect.
Even though we have war movies that tend to use bloody and gory scenes to captivate the audience and immerse them into the environment, I think “It Ends with Us” made a smart choice to hold back on its handling of domestic violence to make the movie a bit more user-friendly. If anything, part of me is also glad the movie turned out to be PG-13, because while a number of adults have probably witnessed domestic violence themselves, it is something that teenagers and young adults should probably learn about because depending on the person, they are at the point where they may be starting to think about dating, or relationships. It is something that they would perhaps need to know. Whether it means detecting certain behaviors from their partners or preventing people from becoming violent themselves.
I cannot name a single character in the movie I did not admire. Not only do I think the entire cast does a good job with their roles, but I buy into the chemistry between everyone. Whether we are talking about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni as the two leads, or even Lily Bloom’s relationship in high school where we get to see Isabella Ferrer and Alex Neustaedter play sweethearts. Looking back, the scenes between those two young high school students are some of my favorite parts of the film. For the most part, they are wholesome. I appreciated some of Lily’s actions. And it did a good job setting up these two characters for the events that play out in the rest of the film. On that note, Brandon Sklenar stands out as an older Atlas much like Alex Neustaedter does playing the younger interpretation.
As a Bostonian, I would say this film does an okay job masking the fact that despite the story taking place in Boston, this movie was in fact shot in New York. Of course, the movie has an obligatory shot of the Zakim Bridge before it hides any sense it was shot somewhere else. There is one concept that I thought was pretty funny where there happens to be a bar that plays Bruins games, and encourages people to wear onesies to get free drinks. I do not know of a bar in Boston that does that. I should note this concept is also in the book. But I would not be surprised if someone sees this movie, or based on said movie’s growing popularity, reads the book, and starts this tradition somewhere in Boston.
I am not going to pretend that “It Ends with Us” is the must see title of 2024. But kind of like “Barbie” last year, it is probably one of the more important watches. It is a movie that I probably would not have selected as my first choice. Heck, I watched “Oppenheimer” two weeks before I watched “Barbie,” but I think it is a movie from which people will take something with them, while also still being quite entertained. And boy, am I surprised at the entertainment value this movie offers. It has its laughs, it has its smiles. It has its feel good moments. Yet at the center of it all is an issue that I can gladly say I never had to face, but I think could serve as a decent learning experience for those who have never seen it. As for those who have dealt with it, or those with more expertise on this issue than I, this begs me to ask… Is this movie’s depiction of domestic violence rightfully executed? Do you think they should have done it differently? I know this issue is not comfortable for everyone to talk about. I am not trying to pressure anyone. But as someone who does not have a ton of experience with this topic I am never against learning something new.
In the end, “It Ends with Us” surprised me. I almost ended up not seeing this movie. To be real, I went because my mom wanted to check it out and I thought I’d go with her. And I am glad I did. Also, considering how Blake Lively’s spouse, Ryan Reynolds has a big movie out, I wanted to see what Blake Lively herself had up her sleeve. Safe to say, it was something worth checking out. Regardless of how it was marketed, “It Ends with Us” is a good movie. Sometimes the dialogue is not the greatest and some moments feel oddly hokey. But I can forgive that. The film has a great cast of characters and I found the pace flying at times. This is not a movie that I would recommend to everyone, but I think it is one that should you decide to watch it, you will leave it thinking you have not wasted your time. I am going to give “It Ends with Us” a 7/10.
“It Ends with Us” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” the long-awaited sequel starring Michael Keaton. Stay tuned! If you want to see this upcoming 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 “It Ends with Us?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year that surprised you? It could be a good or bad surprise. “It Ends with Us” ended up being one of my positive surprises, so if you would like to know a negative one, check out my review for the colossal disappointment known as “Argylle!” I like Matthew Vaughn, I like the cast, but the movie? Cast it into the fire for all I care! Let me know your surprise movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Garfield Movie” is directed by Mark Dindal (Chicken Little, The Emperor’s New Groove) and stars Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The LEGO Movie), Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers, Pulp Fiction), Hannah Waddingham (The Fall Guy, Ted Lasso), Ving Rhames (Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Jack the Giant Slayer), Cecily Strong (Schmigadoon!, Saturday Night Live), Harvey Guillén (What We Do in the Shadows, Eye Candy), Brett Goldstein (Ted Lasso, SuperBob), Bowen Yang (Saturday Night Live, Awkwafina is Nora from Queens), and Snoop Dogg (The Joker’s Wild, Training Day). This film is inspired by the “Garfield” comic strip and centers around the iconic orange feline who reunites with his father all the while needing to complete a high-stakes heist.
The “Garfield” property is one that I never found myself overly attached to. As a child who grew up in the 2000s, I have come across the Bill Murray-led “Garfield: The Movie” and watched it a couple times. I did not have a passion for the material, personally. In my early double digit ages, I have also watched a couple episodes of Cartoon Network’s “The Garfield Show” when we had company at my house and I was not the one controlling the TV. Safe to say, with my limited exposure and lack of memory or experience with the comics, “Garfield” was not something I cared about a lot as a kid.
Speaking of not caring, I felt rather indifferent about “The Garfield Movie.” The only catalysts that could have gotten me invested in “The Garfield Movie” are the trailers looking uniquely bad, and the powers that be deciding some time ago that Chris Pratt is the only person who can lead big animated movies now for some reason. As soon I heard Chris Pratt was voicing Garfield, my first thought was the same when I heard he was voicing Super Mario. And that thought was, “Why?”
Now that I have seen “The Garfield Movie” and have now witnessed Chris Pratt’s performance as the title character, my thought was the same when I finally saw “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and heard Pratt voice the title character in that. And that thought was, “Why?” Genuinely, I do not know how Chris Pratt could have worked in this role. The only defense I could possibly come up with is that Garfield, by nature, is a pretty lazy individual. And when I am hearing Chris Pratt talk, he kind of sounds rather mellow and unenthusiastic. That maybe could be what the movie’s going for, but it doesn’t work for me. And maybe this shows Pratt’s range because he also voiced Emmet in “The LEGO Movie,” which, sure, is pretty much the definition of an everyday, ordinary guy. But Pratt sounds enthusiastic enough in his performance there to put a spin on the everyday nature of the character. If anything, Chris Pratt in “The Garfield Movie” is about as interesting as a trip to DMV. He is lifeless, lacking in flair, and sounds as if he is just getting ready for the fat cat of a paycheck. The best way I can sum up Chris Pratt’s performance in “The Garfield Movie” is to say that I do not see a cat. I just see Chris Pratt in a soundbooth. It is the same problem I had with Dwayne Johnson voicing Krypto in “DC League of Super-Pets.” When you get a big name celebrity like that to be the lead voice of your film, sure, maybe it will boost credibility for select audience members. But to me it almost fails to come off as “acting.” I love “The LEGO Movie,” and Chris Pratt is a standout as the voice of Emmet. But “The Garfield Movie” is not a good fit for him. I did not think Chris Pratt could give a less interesting voiceover than “Onward.” Then “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” happened, and so did “The Garfield Movie.” What a world we live in.
That said, the movie’s supporting cast is a bit better. Samuel L. Jackson does an okay job as Vic (center). Hannah Waddingham, even though she could have been written better, does the best she can with Jinx. I thought Nicholas Hoult gave a much better performance as Jon than I anticipated. I like Hoult, but I was rather surprised he put as much passion as he did into the role. But by far the best performance in the movie is Ving Rhames as Otto, a bull who served as a mascot for a farm. Rhames currently has a consistent career in the voiceover game doing Arby’s commercials. But his performance as Otto proves that he not only has the meats, he has the goods. Also to his advantage, he has the best lines in the movie. There is one line, I cannot remember it verbatim, that he uses to mathematically determine how long it would take for Garfield and Vic to cooperate and work as a team. But for what I remember, based on the way it was executed, it delivered one of the bigger laughs I had during the film. And that transitions into another disappointment. I wish this film were funnier. After all, “Garfield” is an iconic comic strip. You’d expect humor out of something like “Garfield.” And sure, there are glimmers of “The Garfield Movie” that deliver a few laughs, but not a ton.
Animation-wise, the movie delivers a fairly wide color spectrum in certain scenes. There are moments, color-wise, that feel surprisingly bland. But I was impressed with the animation of the Italian restaurant we see at the beginning of the movie. Additionally, there are a few shots that tend to stand out and match the film’s mile a minute pacing. But I cannot say anything regarding the animation is revolutionary or changes the game. Although one compliment I would add is that Garfield himself is well designed. For the most part, he looks like he is straight out of the comic strip. They did a good job at bringing him to life. I just wish he were voiced more effectively.
One thing I took from “The Garfield Movie” is the notion that if this is how the title character is in his other material, then I probably do not have a passion for said character. On paper, Garfield may sound relatable, but his relatability is hard to balance for story like the one this movie is delivering. Garfield’s relatability comes from laziness, unwillingness to get outside, flawed dieting choices, things that make us human. Deep down, some of us can put ourselves in Garfield’s shoes, but throughout this film, no matter how much the plot chooses to progress, Garfield himself appears to lack dimension. In fact, going back to Ving Rhames as Otto, I think he had by far a much better journey in this movie than Garfield did. By the time we got to the end of his portion of the story, it delivered a greater sense of satisfaction to yours truly to what I felt as soon as we got the end of Garfield’s time in the film.
On another note, I was surprised to know how much product placement is in this film. Who directed this? Michael Bay?! Where are the explosions?! Where’s the corny, outdated dialogue? Come on, guys! What are you doing?! I’m guessing this what one of the “Transformers” movies changes into when it needs to shake things up. When it comes to animated movies, “The Garfield Movie” is not quite as bad as “The Emoji Movie” in terms of product placement, but there are obvious winks to FedEx, Popchips, and multiple instances of Olive Garden to the point where I thought I was watching a “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie instead of “The Garfield Movie.”
In the end, “The Garfield Movie” is predictable, disposable, and unmemorable. I would almost argue the movie is too chaotic. Everything gets into gear really quickly to the point where I never found myself fully invested with what was happening. The best phrase I can use to describe this movie is “run of the mill.” I have most definitely seen better, but it is not horrible. It is not the worst thing I ever seen. In fact, with “Madame Web” having released earlier this year, “The Garfield Movie” is not even the worst Columbia Pictures movie we got this year. But the first act at times is a chore to get through. Garfield is rather unadmirable as a character. The story, even with its more complex elements, is somewhat predictable. The ending almost overstays its welcome. And Chris Pratt is incredibly miscast as the titular role. I am going to give “The Garfield Movie” a 4/10.
“The Garfield Movie” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “I Saw the TV Glow.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” “Young Woman and the Sea,” and “Inside Out 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Garfield Movie?” What did you think about it? Also, Garfield clearly loves lasagna to such an insatiable degree. On that note, I must ask, what food would you say is your weakness? I have a number that come to mind, but pizza’s gotta be up there. I literally took a two hour drive from my house a month ago and stayed overnight in a hotel just to try a pizza place I have been eyeing for some time. With that said, let me know down your hunger-inducing weaknesses down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Ghostbsuters: Frozen Empire” is directed by Gil Kenan (Monster House, Poltergeist) and this film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ant-Man), Carrie Coon (The Leftovers, Fargo), Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, It), Mckenna Grace (The Young and the Restless, Gifted), Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, The Big Sick), Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, A.P. Bio), Ernie Hudson (The Basketball Diaries, Quantum Leap), and Annie Potts (Toy Story, Young Sheldon). This movie traces back to the franchise’s origin point, New York City, and centers around the Ghostbusters’ quest to uncover the connections to an ancient artifact and to keep civilization from being trapped under ice.
Here is a fun fact about Scene Before, “Ghostbusters” literally got this blog started. I am serious. Because I started this blog in 2016 as part of a high school project. One of the big talking points at the time was the trailer for the “Ghostbusters” reboot, which I did not enjoy. Then months later, one of the big talking points was the movie connected to that trailer, which I did not enjoy. Like, really did not enjoy. In fact, when I did my worst films of the 2010s list, that was #1, and I stand by it. Could that movie have worked? Of course it could have! After seeing “The LEGO Movie,” I am under the impression any movie can work. But 2016’s “Ghostbusters” was not funny. The CGI was off-putting. And it is a waste of a lot of people’s talent. When I look back at the film, part of me hates talking about it. Because if I simply say I did not like the movie, there is probably someone out there pointing their finger at me and telling me that I hate women. I am all for women empowerment. Look at how epic “Wonder Woman” was the following year. I just wish this movie were handled better.
When “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was announced, I was quite excited. I thought it was a little soon for a new “Ghostbusters” outing, but the trailers seemed to successfully balance nostalgia with an immersive, adventurous vibe. It was also nice to see the franchise outside of New York City for once. Unfortunately, I did not get to review the movie due to time constraints. But if you want my quick thoughts, I had a ball with it. I liked the new characters. Paul Rudd was great in his role. The sound design was quite good. And the action sequences were fun. The movie was a delight. The film by no means rewrote what it meant to be a box office success, but it was enough of a hit to justify another movie, in this case “Frozen Empire.”
Just to give a quick ranking of the “Ghostbusters” movies before this one came out, I would have to say the first one is easily the best. “Afterlife” comes in second. “Ghostbusters II” takes third place for me. And again, it pains me just mentioning it, but I have to be honest, my least favorite film of the franchise is the disconnected “Ghostbusters” 2016. So where does “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” rank amongst these movies?
Honestly, smack dab in the middle.
In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an easy thumbs up. There is plenty to like about this sequel. But there is not a lot to love. Does the movie have decent nostalgia? Sure. Does the movie have a good concept? Sure. Is the humor on point? Sure, but it is not as strong as the original movie. Does it handle the newer characters well? Some better than others. This is the one thing about this movie, there are a lot of positives, but when I say positives, I do so knowing that these positives may not be worthy enough for me to go back and watch the movie a second time in the next few months.
Sorry to spoil a movie that is a couple years old, but in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” the four original “Ghostbusters” made an appearance towards the end of the film. And yes, I said four. They found a way to inject the late Harold Ramis into the project. In this installment, three of those four are back, and around for a bit longer. Ernie Hudson and Dan Aykroyd have more notable impacts on the story, but Bill Murray manages to squeeze himself in at some point.
One thing I have noticed about the “Ghostbusters” franchise, at least in the movies, is that all of the ghosts are not on the busters’ side. Obviously, if your crew is about killing ghosts, of course, you are going to not play nice with them. But this movie introduces a ghost character who I thought served as a nice antithesis to that idea to some degree. Specifically, Melody played by Emily Alan Lind. Throughout the film we see young Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) develop a connection with her that drives the plot forward significantly. The two have good chemistry and I like seeing them onscreen together. Some elements as to how their bond starts may come off as far-fetched or convenient, but at the same time, it does make sense in a franchise where the Statue of Liberty basically goes “Night at the Museum” during the climax of “Ghostbusters II.”
Although that subplot does not even bring forth the most convenient, perhaps out of left field part of the movie. Because that honor, if you can call it that, goes to something we see out of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, Nadeem Razmaadi (left center). As much as I enjoyed the climax of this movie, if there is one thing I did not like about it, there is a moment where we see Nadeem do something that had me going “Why?” The moment did not feel authentic. Again, I understand, it is “Ghostbusters.” The franchise has jumped the shark before. But I feel the franchise is at its best when there is a balance between reality and fantasy. This leans too far into the fantasy route for me.
This is not to suggest you have to like one movie over the other, but I have a feeling that if you like the 1980s “Ghostbusters” fare, you might feel more comfortable watching this movie at times compared to “Afterlife.” It’s back in New York City, you have more time with the original cast, and it has a much larger scale and feel. If you like those things, you should, on paper, have an okay time with this movie. But the reality is, much like what I said last week about “Kung Fu Panda 4,” if I were to introduce this franchise to someone, I would just start with the original. This follow-up is entertaining, but it does not change the game. It is not going to be remembered as one of the greats. Maybe I will catch it again on cable one day. “Ghostbusters” seems to have a large presence there anyway. But we shall see. It could be better. But for my money, I had fun with it.
In the end, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an enjoyable time, but compared to a couple other installments in this franchise, it is not as good. When it comes to pure spectacle, this movie does not fail. There is an action scene in the first act that had me hooked and excited for whatever was going to come next. Was I intrigued by everything that came after? You can say that. But I am not going to pretend I will run down the street screaming my highest recommendations for this film. That said, if you decide to watch it, you might enjoy it. You never know. I am going to give “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” a 6/10.
“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming up in the pipeline including “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” “Monkey Man,” “Abigail,” and “Civil War.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Ghostbusters” movie? And despite everything I said earlier, I welcome any and all opinions about the 2016 reboot. If you like it, more power to you. But for me, the original is the best one. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Madame Web” is directed by S.J. Clarkson (The Defenders, Jessica Jones) and stars Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, The High Note), Sydney Sweeney (Anyone But You, Euphoria), Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold), Celeste O’Connor (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Selah and the Spades), Tahar Rahim (The Serpent, The Mauritanian), Mike Epps (The Hangover, Next Friday), Emma Roberts (Nerve, Scream Queens), and Adam Scott (Parks and Recreation, Big Little Lies). This film centers around a woman named Cassandra Webb. When this paramedic discovers she is clairvoyant, she tries to balance learning about her past all the while protecting the future of three teenage girls.
In the moviegoing market, comic book movies are a dime a dozen nowadays. But there are reasons for that. For starters, a lot of them have received positive reviews in recent years. DC titles like “Joker,” “The Suicide Squad,” and “Wonder Woman” have received a lot of love over the years. In the case of the first title, it even got some recognition at the Academy Awards. The MCU has had a lot of positive critical reception and have been darlings with fans and audiences. On Sony’s side, the animated “Spider-Verse” titles have tons of dedicated fans. But let’s not forget the real reason why these films keep getting made. It’s the same reason every film gets made. Profit.
Films like “Iron Man 3,” “Aquaman,” and “Captain Marvel” for example, all made more than a billion dollars. Naturally, Sony wants a piece of that pie as well. And it’s not like they’re a stranger to it. Their collaborations with Marvel Studios, “Spider-Man: Far from Home” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” both joined the billion dollar club. At the time, 2002’s “Spider-Man” became the fastest movie to ever reach $100 million at the box office. But in recent years, the studio has moved over to making films about Spider-Man characters without the use of the webhead as its primary protagonist. “Venom,” despite how much I think it is hot garbage, made more than $856 million. “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” even though it came out when the COVID-19 pandemic kept some audiences at home, still managed to pass the $500 million mark. Then came “Morbius…” With the film grossing $167.5 million against a reported $75 million budget, it barely reached a point of breaking even.
And some may ask why these films seem to be making less than some of their competitors. While there are other factors that definitely come into play, I can shed light on one of them. These films are just not as memorable or high quality compared to say a lot of the MCU installments we have gotten over the years.
If you all remember my review for “Morbius,” I railed that movie into the ground. I wondered why Sony decided to get the writers of “Gods of Egypt,” Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, to pen the picture. Maybe they are nice people. Maybe they save kittens from trees on a regular basis, I have no idea, but it does not change the fact these two are some of the worst writers in Hollywood. I was especially shocked that Sony saw “Morbius” and thought, “You know who we should get to write our next comic book film?” The guys who gave us that schlocky Jared Leto film we pushed back for a couple years! As for the one trailer released in this film’s lackluster marketing campaign, it honestly did not help things. But of course, there have been plenty of uninteresting trailers to good movies. But what did I think of the movie itself? Well, to answer this question, I am just gonna have to ask anyone who is reading this to strap themselves in. Because this movie is getting the angry, tangent-filled review it deserves. Why? Because this movie is one of the worst I have ever seen in my entire life. I am not exaggerating. I am not being hyperbolic. This may be the worst film of the decade. Period. End of sentence. Done. Finito. The rain has taken the spider out.
This film is the first I have seen where they flashed the Columbia Pictures 100 years logo. I guess it only took a century to make something as truly diabolical and asinine as whatever this ridiculousness happens to be. I do not know how they did it. But somehow, Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless wrote a film that is worse than “Morbius.” Get ready guys, I am about to do something I hoped I would not have to do, use “Morbius” as THE POSITIVE.
While “Morbius” was not great, the film at least started with a hint of promise. Looking back, the film had an okay, not great, but mildly amusing first act that did an alright job at establishing a key relationship in the film. You got to know Michael. You got to know Milo. It actually helps the film somewhat as it shoddily progresses. In “Madame Web,” I was about to break just from scene one.
As far as big budget movies go, this is one of the most headache-inducing I have watched. This may seem like a small thing, but there are a couple moments in the film that had these unnecessary zooms. It felt like the cameraman was trying out a camera for the first time and attempting to figure out how the zoom works! It’s that bad! Of course, the cringeworthy dialogue from the beginning did not help much either. And if you like cringeworthy dialogue, fasten your seatbelts, because you are in for a treat! This movie has it in spades! Disappointingly, “He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died,” is not one of those lines. Yep, that infamously awful line from the trailer, it’s not in the movie. As for the other straight up abysmal utterances of words and phrases that did make it into the final project, they are not much better.
What makes “Madame Web” inferior to “Morbius?” Well, looking back at “Morbius,” I think Jared Leto did a great job staying in character the entire time and Matt Smith had the energy of a lively game show host with an edge. As much as I hate bashing actors nowadays, there is not one performance in the film to write home about.
With the exception of one scene past the film’s halfway mark, I cannot say Dakota Johnson gave her best work in this film. To be fair though, going back to the irritatingly terrible screenplay, it did not help things. The one moment Johnson shines in the film just so happens to be the one halfway decent moment in the screenplay. It is one where we get to have a nice, charming moment between her and another character. It is perhaps the only moment of the movie where any of the characters unleash authentic emotion. It was the one moment of the movie where I didn’t hate myself. Then we get to the next scene, and I am not kidding, where it only took a few lines for me to slap myself in the face like I was the first guy trying to figure out how to cure amnesia.
Dakota Johnson may play the protagonist of the film and had top billing. Given what she had to venture through, I’d argue she was underpaid. Right below her is Sydney Sweeney. In the time it took me to write this review, I think significantly more teenage boys took the time to buy posters of Sweeney to put on their bedroom walls than they did to secure “Madame Web” tickets. Knowing the inexcusably bad execution of her character on the page, I think those teenagers made some comparably reasonable purchases. For one thing, from a casting perspective, I find it hilarious that they ended up casting Sydney Sweeney to play a shy, reserved teenage girl. It might be the funniest casting since getting John Cena to play Vin Diesel’s brother in “F9: The Fast Saga.” Now I have seen twenty-something year old actors play teens decently before, and I have seen suave, confidence-exuding actors play roles that do not quite match those aspects of their real life persona. The profession is called acting for a reason. Look at Ana de Armas in “Knives Out!” She is perhaps one of the most beautiful actresses in the business today, but I don’t think you would get that impression of Ana de Armas if your first watch of her in a movie happened to be “Knives Out.” The best thing I can say about Sydney Sweeney in “Madame Web” is the same thing I can say for Jared Leto in “Morbius.” She did her best with the excruciatingly dull material given to her.
In comic book movie speak, the placement between Sydney Sweeney, the other teenage girls, and Dakota Johnson reminds me of the 2015 “Fantastic 4” reboot. An uninteresting, poorly contrived group of four people that is randomly placed together with no semblance of personality or likability. But you know what? I was able to find more positives in “Fantastic 4” than I did for “Madame Web.” The visual effects look nice, some of the first act was okay, and I think Miles Teller did a good job in the lead role. Meanwhile, “Madame Web” pales visually minus a few creative moments, I rolled my eyes from scene one, and I could not find a good performance even if you put a hypnotist in front of me to convince me that one was in front of me all along.
Speaking of “Fantastic 4,” this film, not to mention their respective distributors, have something in common. They come from similar obligations. Rights maintenance. It’s not show friends, it’s show business. Sony is obligated to commence production on a “Spider-Man” project every five years and nine months. They do not have to release the film, they just have to say that it is in production. After seeing “Madame Web,” I can say to those complaining that studios are not making enough original movies, Sony probably feels your pain. They likely felt that they did not want to make this film and instead, they had to. But you know what they could have done? I don’t know, cancelled it?! Go all David Zaslav on it and scrap it for a tax write-off?! That’s what they could have done! For those who say “Batgirl” should never have been cancelled, I think “Madame Web” may prove why that movie met its fate. After all, “Madame Web” is not making all the money in the world. You know why it is not making all the money in the world? It’s unwatchable! Simple as that!
As a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which this movie does not connect to, I recognize that the entirety of that timeline is not based on the vision of one director, or writer. A lot of it traces back to Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios. As much as I am not one for what many would call studio interference, I will not deny that a lot of the success of the MCU is owed to Feige and his ability to balance connectivity from one project to the next. Not everything is a hit. There have been duds like “Thor: The Dark World,” but everything makes sense and at least feels like it is coming from some hint of passion. Feige cares about what goes on the screen. The filmmakers care about what goes on the screen. I am not saying this film’s director, S.J. Clarkson does not care. But as a whole, this movie feels like made by people who could care less about how it would turn out. Despite how much money these movies make and their extreme presence in popular culture, the MCU movies feel like they are made with love. At least they are when standing next to “Madame Web,” which feels like it was made to fit into a release schedule.
Speaking of release dates, I love how this movie was released on Valentine’s Day. I have never been in a relationship myself, but I nevertheless feel like I am in a fair position to give some advice. If you took your partner to see “Madame Web” on Valentine’s Day, they have every right to use that as a reason to block your phone number, ghost you, or break up with you. I don’t make the rules. I just tell things as they are.
Seriously! Who in their right mind saw “Morbius” and thought the writers should continue working in this cinematic universe? The fact that they were able to conjure a script that is inferior to their previous project is baffling to me.
And if you think I got into the movie’s most shameful moments yet, just wait. You have seen nothing yet. If you have been following this blog for the past five or six years, chances are you may remember my thoughts on “Uncle Drew.” But for those who need catching up, I have to say the movie was not funny, not charming, and completely lacking in any likability whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, “Uncle Drew” has only given me two things. One of the most passionate reviews I have done on this platform, and ire. Not much else. In that review, I titled it the “worst Pepsi commercial ever.” That highly talked about ad with Kendall Jenner has nothing on just how bad that movie was. It was filled to the brim with Pepsi product placement to the point where I almost wanted to chuck a couple Coca-Colas directly at the screen.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think “Madame Web” is now a fine contender to be the worst Pepsi commercial in history.
I am almost scared to know what went on behind the scenes of “Madame Web,” but at the same time, I am curious to know how much money Pepsi shelled out just have the exposure they’ve gotten in this film. Sony films in general are usually obnoxious enough for how much they advertise their own products. Just look at “Gran Turismo!” Not only is that based on a PlayStation exclusive video game, but it also doubles as a Nissan commercial, and ends up making the Walkman an essential element to the story. When it comes to product placement, Sony is arguably the most shameless major studio when it comes to this heinous trend. I understand, movies are expensive and studios need to pay the bills. But why does Pepsi need to be thrown in my face so obnoxiously? At this point, this is not a movie. It’s a giant, uninspired, bloody two hour ad! The real protagonist of this film is not Cassandra Webb, it’s Pepsi!
Speaking of lazy, the ending of this film downright sucks on so many levels. For starters, it reuses footage from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2.” Not only did it feel like a quick copout, but it made me wish I was watching a much better movie! As for other reasons why the ending sucks, I must once again go back to my old friend “Morbius.”
I said one of the reasons that film did not work for me was because it lied in its marketing campaign about certain things. Unfortunately, Sony learned nothing when marketing “Madame Web.” Because there is an entire segment of the trailer dedicated to showing off something regarding the teenage girls. Now, as mentioned, the teenage girls are in the movie. And that “something” I just mentioned is in the final picture. Unfortunately though, that something is used to basically tease a certain thing in the future. Perhaps a “Madame Web 2.” To that I must say, if you cannot give me a cool movie the first time, why should I care about what you are going to give me the second time? The ending of this movie basically just tells me that after being trapped in front of a screen for two hours, it wants me to come back for an occasion where we actually see something potentially worthwhile. One of the flaws of cinematic universes or modern film franchises in general is that everybody is so concerned about building excitement in regards to what’s next to the point where it is easy to forget that you have to focus on the feature that is in front of you. Additionally, we get a costume reveal for our title character and I have to say, it is strange to look at. Maybe it is because so much of this movie looks dark and greyish at times. Compared to a lot of other comic book movies, the color palette looks bleak. If these Sony Marvel movies have one thing in common, it’s that they look dark and depressing. It sometimes turns me off. I get that characters like Venom are often seen as villains, but still.
Honestly though, the movie is sometimes hilarious, but not in a good way. There is an entire subplot dedicated to the birth of a certain character whose name is never mentioned. As a “Spider-Man” fan, I am able to put the pieces together and determine who this character is, but the way this movie goes about this feels insulting and lazy. The subplot also brings out one of the most cringeworthy jokes in the movie. Basically, Emma Roberts’s character reveals her water just broke, to which one of the teenage girls ends up shouting, “Ewwwwwwww!” I am not joking, to say I facepalmed in that moment would be an understatement. If you were in my auditorium and you heard a loud slapping sound out of nowhere, that was me slapping my hand on my face in anger.
And yes, for those who ask, that was the scene that followed the one decent moment in the movie.
From a technical perspective, “Madame Web” has some okay moments in terms of the action sequences, but nothing I will worship until the day I die. In fact, once again, there is one action sequence that further emphasizes my displeasure with Pepsi’s overexposure throughout this turd of a film. I think the weakest part of the film from a technical standpoint is the sound. Now, everything’s clear. I could hear all the dialogue, in its everlasting, infinite, sigh-inducing glory… But there are multiple parts of the film where I thought I was getting brain damage from how loud the movie was. I watched the film in IMAX, which would naturally mean the sound would be louder. But I have been to numerous IMAX experiences and have witnessed plenty where louder sound has only served as a benefit. Take “Oppenheimer” for example. That trinity test scene was bonkers in IMAX. It was something else. It was one of the most riveting things I witnessed in my entire life simply because I felt like I was a part of that scene. Sometimes “Madame Web” was just loud enough to the point where my headache must have gotten irritated by what was in front of it. Speaking of headaches, the way this movie goes about explaining our main protagonist’s powers sometimes got on my nerves. It’s not that I did not understand it, but rather that it was showcased in such a way that messed with my mind the longer it lasted on the screen.
“Madame Web” is an hour and 56 minutes long. Honestly, that runtime is incredibly flawed. According to my calculations, I think I found the perfect runtime for the film. And that runtime is nothing because a film like this should have never been released. The fact that it even got made is mind-blowing. When this film started, I was turned off. As it progressed, I was seething. When the credits showed up, I stormed out of the theater like a young child who got blue shelled by their friend twice in one race during a session of “Mario Kart!”
I wish I were exaggerating. You may think I am simply telling you this for dramatic effect. It’s true. But I assure you, that short paragraph I just wrote, has more substance than “Madame Web” can provide in less than two hours.
In the end, to call “Madame Web” a joke would make sense, but to do that would be insult against comedy. Because comedy makes you laugh. The only thing “Madame Web” did was intensify my anger. I love comic book movies. I know they are not exactly in the best state right now, but I remember walking out of every MCU movie that came out last year. And even if they were not fantastic, they at least had some redeeming qualities. I know a lot of people have been recently bagging on “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and “The Marvels,” but I dare you to watch those two movies and “Madame Web” in a marathon and tell me that “Madame Web” is not the worst of those three. Because those two movies, despite their flaws, manage to pack in some fun. They deliver good action, neat effects for the most part, and have likable protagonists at the forefront. When I say that “Madame Web” is the worst film of the decade, it is hard to imagine such an assessment being a stretch. Between a wasted superhero story where we barely get any superhero DNA throughout, a lackluster villain, bad writing, terrible jokes, obscene dialogue, and tired homages to “Spider-Man” lore, “Madame Web” is an utterly atrocious mess that will go down in history as one of the most asinine, sloppy, downright criminal pieces of cinema that has ever disgraced the silver screen. Martin Scorsese, if you are reading this, I may disagree with you on comic book movies in regards to whether or not they are cinema. But after seeing “Madame Web,” I think it would be wrong to even call it a theme park ride. Why? …Because theme park rides are fun. I am going to give “Madame Web” a 1/10.
“Madame Web” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Drive-Away Dolls!” Hopefully that will serve as a palette cleanser for the fiendish brain cell-eradicator of a movie I just watched. One can only hope. Also coming soon, I will have my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” and “Kung Fu Panda 4.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Madame Web,” and why did you think it was terrible? Err, sorry! My mind nearly broke for a second, what I meant was, what did you think of the movie? Or, what is the superior project? “Madame Web” or “Morbius?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Anyone But You” is directed by Will Gluck (Friends with Benefits, Peter Rabbit) and stars Sydney Sweeney (Euphoria, The Handmaid’s Tale), Glen Powell (Hidden Figures, Top Gun: Maverick), Alexandra Shipp (X-Men: Apocalypse, Barbie), GaTa (Good Mourning, Dave), Hadley Robinson (Utopia, Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty), Michelle Hurd (Star Trek: Picard, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), Dermont Mulroney (The Wedding Date, About Schmidt), Darren Barnet (Never Have I Ever, Gran Turismo), Bryan Brown (Cocktail, The Thorn Birds), and Rachel Griffiths (The King’s Daughter, Hacksaw Ridge). This film is about man and a woman who meet in a coffee shop, hit it off romantically, only to have everything fall apart the next day. Some time later, the two reunite at a destination wedding in Australia all the while pretending to be a couple.
During many of my horror movie reviews, I would point out that horror is one of my weaker genres. When I started Scene Before, and even before I started, I tended to avoid horror because many of the movies coming out in said genre either looked identical or uninteresting. Thankfully, having explored more of the genre over the years, I have welcomed quite a few fascinating titles into my life. Similarly, romcoms are another type of film that usually slip under the radar for me. They’re just not my kind of movie. I’ve watched romcoms in the past. In 2019 I saw and reviewed “Long Shot” and “Isn’t It Romantic?,” which offered two completely different experiences for me. In 2022 I reviewed “Ticket to Paradise,” which ultimately got a thumbs up from me despite some problems that came up throughout the runtime. Last year, I reviewed “No Hard Feelings,” which I called a romcom in my review, though looking back it probably would be more accurate to call it a sex comedy than a romantic comedy. When it comes to this blog I have some experience with the genre. But compared to some other types of films, I am a bit of a novice here.
That said, this film is directed by Will Gluck, whose resume as a writer and director is kind of iffy. He previously did the recent “Peter Rabbit” movies, both of which I skipped because they looked like wastes of time. He did “Friends with Benefits,” which I thought was kind of cute. He also did the 2014 edition of “Annie,” which I watched once when it was on Starz. I did not see all of it, but I saw enough of to say I would rather devote my time to something more valuable. Gluck did not write this film, but he also directed “Easy A,” which thanks to some brilliant pacing, a great story, snappy editing, and a marvelous lead performance by Emma Stone, ended up being one of the more memorable coming of age stories of the 2010s.
So, going into “Anyone But You,” I cannot say I was stoked. But I would say I had generously moderate expectations.
Even with those expectations in mind, I was still let down.
This film is dumb. And I can tell it is dumb on purpose. But it is the kind of dumb I cannot appreciate. There is a difference between dumb fun and just dumb. This is the latter. Maybe it is because it is more in line with the films I usually like to seek out, I found a film like “Godzilla vs. Kong” to be an excellent example of dumb fun because even with the wooden characters and oddly structured storyline, the film has some of the best action I had seen in some time upon its release. It was a technical beast. The score was incredible. The special effects were really good. There was a lot to appreciate visually that kept the movie from being bad, unlike its 2019 predecessor, “Godzilla: King of the Monsters.” On the other hand, there are plenty of times in “Anyone But You” where visual gags popped up that either did not generate a reaction out of me, or if they did generate one, it was one that I don’t think the movie would have been going for.
Much of the humor in “Anyone But You,” most notably in the first half, are visual gags that either have to do with private parts or showing off ironclad bodies, sometimes both. It’s the same joke over and over again. If the joke is not funny the first time. Then it is not funny the second, third, fourth, and fifth time. The joke was old when it started, and it was basically on its deathbed by the film’s halfway mark.
My favorite joke in the movie though is one that involves a koala. Of course, Australia, koalas. What a pair. But there are a couple moments in the movie where we see a koala, and those made for my most notable reactions of the film. The jokes are so simple and quick, but that’s part of what makes them great.
And speaking of Australia, one joke that got old really fast was how much this movie utilized the character of Beau. The actor who portrays him, Joe Davidson, said in a press release, “Beau is what you get when you mix all the Australian islands and icons all into one character.” I have lived in the Boston area all my life, and I have seen a number of movies where the characters in said area will have noticeably played up accents. Movies like “The Departed” and “Good Will Hunting,” both of which I enjoyed. But the accents in both of them are definitely over the top, I’d say particularly more so in the former at times but I’d have to watch both films again to compare and contrast. And sometimes when the accents, and in the case of “Anyone But You,” the stereotypes, happen to be this played up, it is distracting. It is almost annoying. Beau is a living, breathing caricature of what some people would perhaps interpret as a hunky, Hemsworth-like Australian. And of course, they make a Hemsworth joke in the movie. Totally didn’t see that coming at all… It reminded me, as a Bostonian, when I saw “80 for Brady” and we would cut to the commentators and they would spew out the most asinine, ear-destroying Boston accents I remember hearing in film history. Safe to say, they were wicked awful. I am not saying there is anything wrong with Australia, their traditions, and what people think of them. I just think the jokes here range somewhere between lazy and overdone.
But how are the two leads of the film? I mean, they’re okay I guess. Sydney Sweeney does an alright job in her role and the material given to her, but there is not as much an oomph in her character or performance compared to what I would have liked to see. But I have to say, Glen Powell is a powerhouse in this film. I honestly forgot how charming he is. I thought Powell was one of the highlights of “Top Gun: Maverick,” and I am glad he is bringing the same appeal to this movie. While I did not love the movie, the material, the jokes, basically a ton of things in it, my biggest positive of the film is that I cannot see anyone other than Glen Powell playing his respective role. The movie is not funny, but Powell makes the most of what is in front of him and he is clearly trying. I just wish he were written better.
One of the more prominent problems I have with “Anyone But You” is that it ultimately feels like two different movies. Yes, I know it is a romantic comedy, which basically promises a romantic movie and a comedic movie all in one package, but the movie as a whole seems to lack a sense of consistency. The first half is a plethora of failed attempts at comedy, and the movie seems to dive into something more serious by the end of it that quite frankly did not keep me hooked. Part of that is because I never found myself completely invested with the characters in the first half. And the weird part is, despite noticing more obvious comedic attempts in the first half of the film, I am looking back at the film and would say I found the second half to be funnier.
As the film continues, it becomes cliche-riddled, bore-inducing, and tiresome. Is the movie offensively bad? I would not go that far. But it is far from the first pick I would make on a Friday movie night. Again, romcoms are not my genre, but I have come to a point in my life where I am practically okay watching any kind of movie regardless of the genre or what it is advertised to be. That said, I also heard enough about this film have some hesitancy towards it, and I felt as if I was right on those reservations. The film is not funny, overly cheesy, not romantic, and kind of forgettable. There are so many other options in theaters right now that I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you check out something else instead.
In the end, “Anyone But You” did not work for me. This is a romantic comedy that is neither romantic or funny. The jokes not only sometimes feel been there done that, but even the more clever ones fell flat because they felt as if they were repeating an earlier comedic attempt. Going forward, I am probably not going to remember a single character’s name from this film, maybe except Bea, partially because she is the lead, but the film somewhat reminded me of “Titanic” because of how many times I had to hear the names “Jack” and “Rose” in its extended runtime. I felt as if I had a similar experience hearing Bea’s name throughout the film. This movie is stupid and I feel dumber for having wasted my time on it. I would rather watch anything but this film if you ask me. I am going to give “Anyone But You” a 4/10.
“Anyone But You” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Happy New Year, everyone! And it is time to celebrate with some end of the year countdowns! Pretty soon I am going to be sharing my lists for my best and worst movies of 2023! Stay tuned! If you want to see these lists 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 “Anyone But You?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your least favorite movie genre? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 