“The Blackening” is directed by Tim Story (Fantastic Four, Think Like a Man) and stars Grace Byers (Harlem, Empire), Jermaine Fowler (Coming 2 America, Superior Donuts), Melvin Gregg (The Way Back, Snowfall), X Mayo (American Auto, The Farewell), Dewayne Perkins (The Upshaws, Saved by the Bell), Antoinette Robertson (Hart of Dixie, Dear White People), Sinqua Walls (Power, American Soul), Jay Pharoah (Saturday Night Live, Unsane), and Yvonne Orji (Velma, Insecure). This horror spoof is about a group of friends who gather together at a house for a Juneteenth party. When the tables turn, it is up for each one of these friends to survive to the very end.
It is time for me to beat a dead horse. If you are going to take that statement literally, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. To be clear, as I have said in other reviews, horror is not my most watched genre. There are several major titles that I have yet to see, and I usually flock to genres like science fiction, action, and comedy prior to it. Although if you look back at the 2022 cinematic calendar, movies like “Smile,” “Barbarian,” and “Nope” just to name a few, were amongst my favorites of the year. Of all the genres, horror may have been the clear winner. 2023 horror has only had few candidates that I have seen. To be fair, it is not fall yet. More will be coming. But of the ones that I have seen, none have had the spark that any of those movies did.
“M3GAN” was likable, and it had some decently executed commentary, but it also is not the most replayable film I have seen. Another horror comedy that came out recently, “Renfield,” was quite good. Though I had some minor problems with Awkwafina’s performance and even though it is funny, I would not call it laugh out loud funny. “Infinity Pool,” which came out early on in the year, felt like an instantly forgettable headache inducer. As great of a performer Mia Goth is, I cannot tell you one thing I enjoyed about “Infinity Pool” that stood out aside from that.
Now we have “The Blackening,” which much like “Renfield,” blends horror and comedy together but seems to extremify both of those elements just a bit more. Whereas “Renfield” could be described as a comedy, I would put “The Blackening” in the category of spoof. Now, I am pretty weak on spoof horror myself, so my expectations may have been somewhere in the middle. Although the more I looked at the poster, the more I lowered said expectations. Thankfully, we got a movie that appears better than its poster, but that is not saying much.
“The Blackening” calls itself a comedy horror. Unfortunately, it does neither of those things well. The jokes do not land and neither do the creeps. I have seen bad comedies and just as awful horror flicks. When you combine the two together in this case, it only delivers twice the disappointment. Two wastes of genres happen to be worse than one. It is simple math. This is not to say there are not inklings of entertainment at all. There is a chuckle here and there, and maybe one or two moments of genuine tension. The scene where the cast are all playing the board game for the first time may have been the highlight of the film. Between everyone’s performances and the pacing of the script, it is a genuinely tense, occasionally humorous instance in what is otherwise a below average film.
The biggest problem I have with “The Blackening” is that the characters, despite their respective actors trying their best with each one, feel interchangeable. Even if there are individual traits given to each character, they all feel like the same person in a different body. Maybe that is what makes them good friends, but it does not help when it comes to indicating things about them that stand out. I ended up caring about certain characters more than others. That is to the point where I likely did not give a crap if someone else ended up dying before the others did.
I saw this film a month ago during a free screening. Knowing what the results of said movie are, I do not think it is worth paying for. Maybe your reaction will be different. The film did get plenty of reactions at my screening ranging from laughs to gasps to hollers. If I had to pick a favorite reaction of mine, in the earlier half, one guy saw something that threw him off. Therefore, this allowed him to swear loud enough for the whole theater to hear. I am not usually for talking during movies in the cinema. But if it is reactionary, I can make an exception. Honestly, I kind of chuckled at his reaction. Speaking of being honest, I would truthfully confess that this guy’s reaction to said scare, may be have been funnier than most of the comedy this movie was trying to deliver. Although if there is one thing I noticed during my screening, and I do not know if this will be the case during yours because with the amount of movies out right now, it is that this movie may be interesting to watch with a crowd. The audible reactions were almost through the roof by the end. Knowing the two genres of this film, I am aware of their infinite subjectivity. Comedy and horror will sit different with each individual perhaps more than action. As of this writing, the film has an 87% critic score and 85% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. It seems to be sitting well with a lot of people. I cannot say the same for myself. I do not know, I think while I may continue to recall the tension of some moments while the players were around the game board, I will equally recall the cringe that was induced whenever this movie resorted to a gag about reading people’s minds.
Going back to the end, my last critique to (literally) end this review, is that the ending is not satisfying. I have seen worse endings, I have seen better endings. However, this movie tends to wrap itself up too quick. Calling it anticlimactic would not be the right description, but that is the closest word that comes to mind. Basically when the movie ended, I felt indifferent. I was not angry, nor was I happy. The right word to describe my mood at such a point may be “content.” I want to leave a film feeling some sort of reaction. If I leave feeling silent, there better a good reason for it. A lack of passion for what I just saw is far from one of them. Again, the scores on this film are mostly positive. Perhaps you will feel different. Maybe go try the movie for yourself sometime and see if that is the case.
In the end, “The Blackening” came and gone like the wind. One moment it was in front of me, and in the next, I wanted to know if there was a better movie that I could watch. Speaking of better movies, if you look hard enough, you can find better comedy and horror titles. When it comes to comedy and horror blended together, “Renfield” just came out a couple months ago. That film delivers more laughs in addition to scares. It is no masterpiece, but it is worth the watch. There are a ton of movies out right now. Of those films competing for your hard earned money, “The Blackening” is not what I would call the prime candidate. I am going to give “The Blackening” a 5/10.
“The Blackening” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I will have reviews for movies like “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts,” “The Flash,” “No Hard Feelings,” “Elemental,” and “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken.” 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 “The Blackening?” What did you think about it? Or what is a movie with a high Rotten Tomatoes score that you disagree with? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Machine” is directed by Peter Atencio (Key & Peele, Keanu) and stars Bert Kreischer as himself, of sorts. Joining him is a cast including Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Jimmy Tatro (Stuber, Home Economics), Iva Babić (The Last Serb in Croatia, Life Is a Trumpet), Stephanie Kurtzuba (The Wolf of Wall Street, Annie), and Jessica Gabor (Shameless, Grey’s Anatomy). This film is inspired by a stand-up routine and is about Bert Kreischer as he takes a trip to Russia, all the while continuously uncovering his past.
“The Machine” may have been the most last-minute purchase I have made as a moviegoer. I ended up going to see “The Machine” because I was at the theater with a friend to watch a press screening of “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” only to be denied entry because of a capacity limit. We decided, with the options given to us, to go see this instead. Despite my bitter attitude, I tried to wear off the aftertaste of defeat and go into this film, albeit minutes late, with a fresh mindset.
“The Machine” is this year’s “Easter Sunday.” For the few of you who remember that movie, it is essentially an hour and a half of Jo Koy playing a hyped up version of himself and taking his stand up routine to the big screen, to less than stellar results. Having seen a number of stand up scenarios, including a few in person, I have learned that the crazier and seemingly far-fetched the story, the more appealing it can sound. Hearing someone talk about their time in Russia while reconnecting the dots of their past as a hyperactive, upbeat, heavily worded story, can be entertaining. In fact, as far as a pitch goes, if I were pitched the backbone of the story for this film, there is a good chance that I would consider greenlighting it. Much like a film I talked about recently, “Hypnotic,” “The Machine” is examplifies how an interesting concept can be fumbled in the execution.
“The Machine” has some likable elements intact. There are some occasional funny lines, the production design stands out at times, and Mark Hamill manages to steal the show every once in a while as Albert. If I have to name a favorite character in the movie, it would be him. I may be biased because I love Mark Hamill, but seeing the angle of him given throughout the picture made his character all the more appealing. Despite seeing Mark Hamill as other characters, I always harken back to Luke Skywalker when thinking about him. Therefore, seeing him drugged up in one scene, not to mention playing the part like a champ, caught me totally off guard. If there is any reason you should pay the price of admission for “The Machine,” Mark Hamill would have to be it. Everything else pales in comparison.
Another similarity I found between “The Machine” and “Easter Sunday” is that like Jo Koy, Bert Kreischer is a comedian I know very little about. But I have come to recognize that he has his fans. Having seen Jo Koy in “Easter Sunday,” I thought he was likable enough to the point where I would not watch a sequel to that film, but maybe I would go see him live and see how he does with that. I try to keep an open mind as often as I can, so maybe I would say the same about Bert Kreischer. A comedian, he may be. An actor, he is not. It is not to say he gives the worst performance I have ever seen, but after seeing Kreischer play an alternate version of his persona, I do not know if he has the strength to carry many productions down the road as a lead. In fact, having a more experienced actor like Mark Hamill play as significant of a character as he does here probably helps in some of the more important scenes to make everything feel a tad more immersive and realistic.
Kreischer faces the problem I feel a number of other comedians face, such as Kevin Hart or Kevin James, where they end up failing to disguise themselves and blend into the role they are given. To be fair, their material is often based in some form of reality and once you start typecasting a person, it is hard to stop. The difference between Kreischer and these two Kevins is that I have seen the Kevins in various productions over the years (and in standup, coincidentally), so inklings of themselves and their past characters will often show up in roles they take on down the road. Kreischer has minimal experience as an actor, and having seen this film, it kind of shows. He is in a word, serviceable. Nothing more, nothing less. That said, I am open to seeing him in another movie, but I doubt he will have any chances at an Academy Award in the next few decades.
If I had any other standout compliments to give to “The Machine” as a movie, I have to say I was delightfully surprised with some of the editing choices. “The Machine” has a quick, snappy pace to it, and a lot of the choices in the film’s edit reflect that. There are multiple creative uses of text and graphics. While this film may not have the most revolutionary jokes or action sequences, that is something I found myself delighted to see pop as much as it did.
Adaptations are everywhere you look these days. People often point out certain ideas that are originally made as books, video games, board games, and sometimes those ideas have a distinction of being “unfilmable.” While I have yet to see any of Bert Kreischer’s standup material, I can imagine his story about his time in Russia is ten times funnier as a standup routine. Similar to how some will claim a book is better than a movie, something interesting about standup is how it can often leave certain details up to the imagination. Sometimes visuals are involved, but it is usually a person talking onstage with a microphone. It is as simple as it gets, but it is the definition of turning nothing into something. “The Machine” takes that something and adds a lot more to it. One could argue that there may be an overabundance of something. This has helped Bert Kreischer build a fanbase based on his comedy. He could shock me in time, but for now, he should probably stick to that craft in particular.
In the end, “The Machine” is not offensive, nor is it a masterpiece. But to call it fine would be generous. I was not expecting much from this movie, but on the topic of expectations, I do not expect myself to watch “The Machine” again. Average comedy and okay action are not enough to make a good movie. There are plenty of other movies to watch in theaters right now, those might be better uses of your money at this time. I am going to give “The Machine” a 5/10.
“The Machine” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! You guys are about to get spoiled! Do not worry, I am not going to ruin “The Flash” for you, but that is one of the many reviews I have coming soon! In addition I will also be reviewing “The Blackening,” “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts,” “No Hard Feelings,” and “Elemental.” I will also be attending an early screening of “Ruby Gilman, Teenage Kraken” on Saturday, so whenever I am able to review that film, I will share my thoughts on that as well. 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 “The Machine?” What did you think about it? Or, who is your favorite comedian? One of my favorites right now, is one I have tickets to see in Boston in November, specifically Jimmy Carr. He is raunchy, dark, and knows his way around an epic comeback. Let me know your favorite comedian down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“BlackBerry” is directed by Matt Johnson (The Dirties, Nirvana the Band the Show), who also plays Doug in this film. Joining him are stars Jay Baruchel (How to Train Your Dragon, This Is the End), Glenn Howerton (A.P. Bio, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Rich Somner (Mad Men, The Devil Wears Prada), Michael Ironside (Highlander II: The Quickening, Superman: The Animated Series), Martin Donovan (Insomnia, Tenet), Michelle Giroux (Blood Pressure, Black Mirror), SungWon Cho (One Piece, Ranking of Kings), Mark Critch (This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Grand Seduction), Saul Rubinek (Warehouse 13, Frasier), and Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride, Robin Hood: Man in Tights). This film is about the rise and fall of the once popular smartphone, BlackBerry.
Nostalgia has been a primary factor into the marketing and execution of many films over the years. Look at how many major franchises there are right now trying to cater to people’s long-held memories. In fact, just this month, we are seeing the tenth installment to the “Fast & Furious” franchise and Disney’s live-action edition of “The Little Mermaid.” Whether we have a childhood connection with the franchise or we discovered it sometime back in the day, there is no doubt that both of these names are likely to thrive because of their recognition. Similarly, I have a bit of a childhood connection to BlackBerry. When I was in elementary and middle school, they were all the rage. Not in my demographic, but amongst adults. My mother had a couple BlackBerrys through her life, I knew teachers who had them, I came across ads for them, and I remember playing games and watching YouTube on my mom’s device when she did not need it. I remember the keyboard, some of the ringtones, the scrolly wheel. It was a nifty looking device, but looking back, it definitely feels bulky by today’s standards. I am still glad we have this film to take audiences back to a time that I almost forgot even existed. I am glad we have an excuse to start talking about this device once again and bring it back in a sense. If anything, this movie is doing for the titular phone what the “Guardians of the Galaxy” sequels have been doing for Microsoft’s Zune, except that was practically a failure from the getgo.
“BlackBerry” was a film that came out of nowhere for me. I have seen some of the marketing, but it is one that has not kept my attention compared to say some of the bigger blockbusters, partially because of how much money must have been spent on the campaign. But now that I saw the movie, I think I am going to help cheapen those marketing costs a tad. Because “BlackBerry” gives “John Wick: Chapter 4” competition for the best movie of 2023. There are some easy comparisons to make between “BlackBerry” and films like “The Social Network” and “The Founder” because of its tech connections or the company’s story of humble beginnings. But to me, what makes “BlackBerry” so great is the same reason behind movies like “The Disaster Artist,” and even more recently, “The Phantom of the Open” working so well for me. Because movies like these manage to find inklings of success in one’s failure.
Of course, unlike “The Room,” which “The Disaster Artist” highlights, the BlackBerry phone and brand were a success to begin with. Granted they had a tough beginning, but they also had a meteoric rise. This movie showcases how they were the phone to define the 2000s, and I believe they arguably had more relevancy at that time than the iPhone when it was announced. It did not take long for the latter to thwart BlackBerry off its throne, but still.
This film has an excellent cast including Jay Baruchel as Mike Lazaridis (left), one of the core people behind BlackBerry’s development. Joining him in a dynamic duo is Matt Johnson as Doug (center). More on him later. Michael Ironside kills a grit-filled supporting role as Purdy. Everyone in this movie is great. But if there is one individual that outshines them all, Glenn Howerton, who plays Jim Balsillie, not only gives the best performance in the movie, but one that has the potential to be my favorite of the year. Granted, it is only May.
If Glenn Howerton’s bone-chilling, jaw-dropping portrayal does not end up being my favorite of the year, I think it will end up being the most overlooked of the bunch. It is a marvel to the tenth degree. It is a fantastic blend of brilliant dialogue and hallowing physicality. Howerton’s presence alone is almost intimidating, and hearing him speak sometimes almost shivers me. To know that is possible with how down to earth this movie comes off, is incredible. The acting in this film is phenomenal, and Howerton is the cream of the crop of what is already a terrific ensemble.
The thing I enjoyed most about “BlackBerry” is that it not only shows the eventual lack of consumer interest BlackBerry earns because of competition, but also because of how the people making it were never on the same page. We see a group of people who disagree with how things should be done behind the scenes. One can call this a case of there being too many cooks in the kitchen, but it can also be said that it is a matter of those cooks not having the same values. Not only when it comes to how the product itself should be made, but the overall process of how the people making it should compose themselves. There is an obvious transition of the company’s doings throughout the film. Not only in terms of its growth, but how its people either grow or refuse to grow with it. It shows how one humble group can transform into a serious industry mainstay, and to do that might mean you have to take the fun out of your objective.
If I have one complaint about the film, I think the cinematography and the color palette are occasionally off-putting. The movie is kind of shaky and all over the place. One may argue that could add an induction of anxiety, which is a good way to describe this movie at times. But I also think the movie slightly lacks a cinematic feel because of this choice. This is likely a subjective preference, because when I think of certain TV shows I do not like, “The Office” often comes to mind because the camerawork, while definitely well-intentioned, is not my cup of tea. Maybe the overall look will work for some people, but for me, it is one of the weaker elements in an otherwise outstanding film.
“BlackBerry” is the cinematic lovechild of Matt Johnson. He co-wrote the film, he directed the film, and he even starred in it as Doug. By the way, he may be the most charismatic, endearing bundle of joy this film has. Johnson has some experience as someone who has worn multiple hats in this industry. But I think “BlackBerry” could be his big break depending on the box office and how well this film does at home. Much like I said about Ari Aster after seeing “Hereditary” a few years ago, I think if Matt Johnson announces his next project, I am there. While he may not have the style of Aster, he certainly has the substance and personality to back things up. I cannot wait to find out what Johnson does from here.
This is a film about sacrifice, greed, determination, and how one’s best efforts can unfortunately lead to one’s greatest failure. I love this movie, I think you should see this movie. And hopefully unlike the BlackBerry phone, it will never go out of style.
In the end, “BlackBerry” has achieved nerdvana. Of the past five months of movies, this one stands out. It is one of my favorite screenplays of the year. It is one of my favorite casts of the year. It is one of my favorite movies of the year. It is a surprisingly thrilling story with compelling characters that I had all sorts of feelings for. This movie works because it not only got me to side with the main characters, but it made me sympathize or occasionally side with anyone in the movie who would perhaps antagonize the main characters too. I know “The Little Mermaid” is going to clobber all the other movies at the box office this weekend. But if “The Little Mermaid” is sold out and you want to see something else, or if you want to drop your kids off at “The Little Mermaid” and see something else while you wait for their movie to finish, this may be your best option if it is playing in a theater near you. I am going to give “BlackBerry” a 9/10.
“BlackBerry” is now playing in theatres. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, check out some of my other ones! Recently I did reviews for films like “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” just to name a few. 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 “BlackBerry?” What did you think about it? Or, did you ever use a BlackBerry phone back in the day? Which model did you use? What are your thoughts on the product? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Renfield” is directed by Chris McKay (The LEGO Batman Movie, Robot Chicken) and stars Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Tolkien), Awkwafina (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Raya and the Last Dragon), Ben Schwartz (Sonic the Hedgehog, Parks and Recreation), Adrian Martinez (Stumptown, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty), Shohreh Aghdashloo (The Expanse, 24), and Nicolas Cage (The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, The Croods). This film centers around Dracula’s servant, Renfield, who puts up with the former’s demands, no matter how outlandish or terrifying. After all this time, he has had enough and will do anything to end their working relationship.
The Universal monsters are not my forte. I am well aware that Count Dracula is not a Universal concept and instead originated by author Bram Stoker, but I also know that he among other monsters like the Invisible Man and the Mummy have had staying power through several Universal films, including the original black and white picture from 1931 and more modern tales like Francis Ford Coppola’s picture from 1990 and “Dracula: Untold” from 2014. That said, I have not watched a lot of Universal monster movies. But I also recognize how unique this feature is. Because instead of giving the audiences another tale about a monster they’ve already heard about, they put a cool spin on it and make the iconic monster you normally see in the spotlight earn the supporting role. In fact, if you watch the first trailer, Dracula is not the centerpiece. Sure, he makes an appearance at the end, but it is not his movie. And of course, how could one not get excited seeing Nicolas Cage himself play the bloodthirsty demon? The moment I saw his face, my jaw dropped, and my eyes lit up.
I was excited to see this movie and hoped I could watch it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I ended up waiting a month after it came out. But was it worth the wait? Definitely. “Renfield” is a good time.
“Renfield” blends perhaps the two most subjective film genres imaginable, comedy and horror. Thankfully, both blend perfectly from start to finish. I enjoyed the relationship between Renfield and Dracula that can be compared to a relationship a deprived employee may have with an abusive boss. In fact, much of the movie is about Renfield trying to get away from his abusive environment, and to do so, he ends up going to support group meetings. We see him unleash his honest thoughts and listen to the thoughts of others. Is it the funniest movie I have ever seen? No. Is it the scariest movie I have ever seen? No. But it still manages to have its highlights of humor and creeps. Although there is one haunting moment past the halfway point that continues to stick with me. And these elements are well realized thanks to the talent of this film’s cast.
Between “The Menu,” the runner-up for top movie of 2022 for me, and now this, Nicholas Hoult is on a roll. His career is on a smooth path, and I am eager to see where it goes from here. His interpretation of Renfield emits awkwardness. Although in a good way. He is simply a guy who is just doing the best he can to get by. He wants to make people happy, but because he is focusing on making someone else, specifically Dracula, happy, he has little time for himself to be happy. In addition to everything I said about Hoult’s character, he is also responsible for perhaps one of the better Old Navy ads I have seen, which having seen their on-air content, is not saying much, but still.
I would say Awkwafina does an okay job as Rebecca. She has good chemistry with Hoult throughout the film.
Although if I have to say one thing though about Awkwafina, she is beginning to remind me of Kevin Hart or Vin Diesel. While I think she has significantly more acting talent than the latter, the problem I have with her, perhaps through no fault of her own, is that like these two individuals, she has been playing the same role from one film to the next. And maybe it is because, kind of like Kevin Hart, her voice, if you have heard it in recent years, has become instantly recognizable. And even while it may have been a proper fit for characters in animated movies she’s been in like “Raya and the Last Dragon” and “The Bad Guys,” it is difficult to find a role where I don’t see elements of her I have not seen prior. This is not to say she is a terrible actor. In fact, she is one of the reasons why “The Farewell” became one of my favorite films of 2019, but a lot of her recent material contain inklings that have become trademarks, making the transformation factor feel lost at times.
That said, what I see of Awkwafina in this film, happens to be a showcase of her strengths as a performer. She maintains a tough attitude as a traffic cop and knows how to balance that with a softer side in other moments. So while I may put this up as a warning for where her career could go, I will say I enjoyed what I saw in this moment.
But of course, Nicolas Cage steals the bloody show as Dracula. There is no way I can do this review and not highlight the power of the mighty Nicolas Cage as the iconic creature. He is all creepy, all kooky, and brings no mercy. Now he is not super terrifying, because this film takes a more comedic approach in its storytelling. Although as I said before, the comedy works and the scares work. It is no masterpiece, but it is a good time at the movies. That said, going back to what I said about Awkwafina becoming more recognizable in her performances, I may be a hypocrite because despite Nicolas Cage being recognizable, I think that element enhances his performance a bit. Seeing his face, which has become a meme by now, honestly makes the character that much funnier. His over the top voice helps too. Every scene he is in, I cannot help but smile. It is not just because it is Nic Cage as Dracula, although it is a small part of it the more I think about it. But he shows no hint of empathy throughout the film and it continues to highlight him as a threat. If there is any reason you should see “Renfield,” I think the most compelling argument you could make in a Times Roman Numeral 12-point font double spaced essay, or whatever other format you choose, is Nicolas Cage as Dracula. He certainly does not suck.
If I have anything else to add, the pacing is really good. The movie is short but manages to avoid overstuffing itself. The climax, while not my favorite of the year, is definitely entertaining. While the movie is not perfect, there are no flaws I can point out that ruined everything. Give “Renfield” a watch sometime, I recommend it.
In the end, “Renfield” is great! I think this film would make for a solid Friday movie night with friends, maybe with some food. The actors all fulfill their roles perfectly, especially Cage as Dracula. I think the film is a neat parody of the Dracula character while serving as a spotlight on abusive relationships. This film is directed by Chris McKay, whose parody experience is not only related to this effort. In addition to his experience behind the scenes on many “Robot Chicken” episodes, he also helmed “The LEGO Batman Movie,” which I think is one of the more underrated animated films of the previous decade. McKay definitely has a knack for comedy, not to mention parody. I cannot wait to see what he does next. I am going to give “Renfield” a 7/10.
“Renfield,” which has been out since April, is now playing in select theaters. The film is also now available on digital platforms.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “BlackBerry,” the brand new film inspired by the true story of the once popular smartphone. Also, stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Blackening” and “Fast X.” All of these reviews are coming soon. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Renfield?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Nicolas Cage film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is directed by James Gunn (The Suicide Squad, Slither) and stars Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The LEGO Movie), Zoe Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek), Dave Bautista (Stuber, My Spy), Karen Gillan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Doctor Who), Pom Klementieff (Oldboy, Westworld), Vin Diesel (Bloodshot, The Fast and the Furious), Bradley Cooper (A Star is Born, Silver Linings Playbook), Will Poulter (We’re the Millers, The Maze Runner), Sean Gunn (Gilmore Girls, The Suicide Squad), Chukwudi Iwuji (Peacemaker, Designated Survivor), Linda Cardellini (ER, Freaks and Geeks), Nathan Fillion (The Rookie, Firefly), and Sylvester Stallone (Rocky, Cliffhanger). In this third installment to the “Guardians of the Galaxy” trilogy, the guardians must save the universe one last time, all the while protecting one of their own. Meanwhile, Peter continues to deal with the loss of Gamora, his love interest.
Of the Marvel Cinematic Universe titles out there, “Guardians of the Galaxy” may be the most distinct of the bunch. Sure, like all the others, it involves superheroes and saving the day. But it has a flavor to it that seperates it from “Iron Man,” “Captain America,” or “Ant-Man.” Part of it may be because of its off-world setting. Sure, a small part of the series is set on earth because Star Lord, the core member of the group, is an earthling. But he ends up becoming one with these faraway worlds. These films define escapism. Between the epic soundtracks, the heavy reliance on space, and the unique characters and surroundings, few Marvel films are as breathtakingly out of this world as these. That said, I am not going to pretend they do not have flaws.
Like many others, I love the first “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Although similar to many of Marvel’s films, the villain is kind of weak. Ronan does not stand out significantly, and he is kind of cliché. That said he does have his moments. Thankfully, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” has a much more compelling antagonist in Ego. Unfortunately the movie did not stick the landing for me. It was not funny, overly cartoony, and I sometimes did not buy some of the things that were happening. Oh, and unpopular opinion, I am not a fan of Baby Groot. I did not find him charming, and the movie overuses him to the point where he becomes a bore. That said, I do like the addition of Mantis. As for “The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special,” I was shocked with how much I ended up digging it. I thought the concept was brilliant, and the execution exceeded my expectations. As far as Disney+ MCU content goes, it is by far one of the better pieces of media on the platform. Even with the ups and downs of this franchise, there is a consistency that I often consider a highlight, and that is the touch of James Gunn.
James Gunn is one of my favorite people working in Hollywood. He makes great Marvel content, he makes great DC content, and I love his persona on Twitter. He will willingly call out horribly inaccurate or clickbaity journalism regarding his content. He strikes me, from his personality, as the right person to direct these movies, and it shows as I watched “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” Many comic books have a stylized nature to them, and the “Guardians of the Galaxy” movie franchise, along with this particular installment, presents itself in a palatable style that comes off as comic booky. You have well-written quips, fast pacing, and charismatic characters. When it comes to that last aspect, it is through the roof. If there is any franchise within the MCU that has the most charisma from its characters, it is arguably this one. In fact, perhaps the most likable character of the titular team is getting some more spotlight this time around. How could I say no to that?
When I think of Rocket, I think of Bradley Cooper. In fact, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is typically the first movie I often visualize of when the thought of Bradley Cooper comes to mind. Either that or “A Star is Born.” However, what makes Rocket compelling this time around is not Bradley Cooper’s presence, if anything, it is his lack of it. Despite saying that, most of the movie centers around him. Specifically through transitions between his present adulthood and his past childhood. The younger Rocket is voiced by someone who I often forget probably does a lot of heavylifting in this franchise, Sean Gunn. Between playing Kraglin, being Rocket’s double, and now serving as the younger Rocket’s voice, Sean Gunn continues to show his range of skills in this franchise. What makes Rocket’s younger iteration absolutely compelling is not only seeing the ins and outs of his younger personality, but how much he transitions to the Rocket he is today based on everything he witnesses at that time. During these flashback scenes, we see Rocket befriend other tiny creatures, and they all have these dynamic, hyperactive, child-like airs about them.
While I complained about how Baby Groot, a younger character, was used in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” I think a highlight for this film is its younger character slate. Because even though this movie pulls a 2016 “Suicide Squad” and endlessly shows flashbacks, they managed to seamlessly connect them with the present while giving an entertaining narrative by itself. While I have become comfortable watching the wisecracking racoon from the past couple films, I found myself compelled by a much softer variant of the character, and his development is perfectly realized throughout. His relationship with supporting animal sidekicks Lylla, Teefs, and Floor made for a great ride in terms of the narrative and the roller coaster of emotions I ended up experiencing as a result of this film. James Gunn effectively plays with my emotions like a fiddle throughout the runtime, and I love him for that. Speaking of James Gunn, let’s dive into one of his trademarks.
One of James Gunn’s talents through his career, specifically in comic book movies, is giving CGI characters significantly more emotional attachment than I have seen some humans have in film. One of my favorite moments of the original “Guardians of the Galaxy” is from the third act, where we see Groot sacrifice himself and recognize the bond he has amongst his fellow teammates. It is a very simple moment, but because of his limited dialogue, both in terms of the number of times he speaks and his diction, the weight of that moment is paramount. The moment he says the words, “We are Groot,” I felt that. In the 2021 movie “The Suicide Squad,” we see King Shark’s story play out, where like Groot, he is kind of simple-minded. He has limited vocabulary, he speaks in fragments, and does not have the most thought-out ideas. But whenever the movie resorts to his arc regarding his desire for friendship, it clicked with me. This talent also transitions to “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” based on Rocket’s arc and his connection with his younger pals. I know James Cameron often talks about his “Avatar” films being the pinnacle of CGI, and I will agree with the notion that the films look stunningly beautiful. But those films deliver plenty of gloss while neglecting personality. “Guardians of the Galaxy” is the best of both worlds where the CGI characters not only look great and have a degree of verisimilitude, but their dialogue and interactions benefit the narrative.
I ended up caring about most of the other characters as well. I think Chris Pratt does a good job once again as Star Lord, possibly giving the angriest performance I have seen out of the character yet. Gamora was well explored with her new self. What makes this interpretation of Gamora interesting is not necessarily her, but how others perceive her. I enjoyed seeing Star Lord have to deal with a Gamora that had no memory of who he was. I think that made for a compelling side plot. Dave Bautista gives a killer performance out of Drax. It combines the character’s strengths from the previous two movies and happily marries them.
As much as I like the effects in this film, I think Groot in this installment has the worst design I have seen of the character thus far. He looks too bulky and cartoony. As much as I did not like the Baby Groot character in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” I liked the way he looked. I cannot say the same about this interpretation. It is not awful, but compared to his predecessors, Groot in this film looks more like a Disney+ original CGI character.
The other character I thought was not utilized properly was Cosmo. Unlike Groot, I have no problem with the way this dog looks. But I do not think Maria Bakalova’s voice was a good fit. I remember Cosmo appeared in the holiday special and I did not have this complaint then. And when I mention this complaint, I am not referring to Bakalova herself. I blame the direction based on the uniqueness of the voice performance not paying off. Maybe if I watch the film a second time I will change my mind on this. Who knows? Plus, her arc almost feels insignificant compared to other characters. There is not much to it. When it was resolved, it was not as satisfying as some of the others.
Funny thing about “Guardians of the Galaxy,” as much as I adore the first film, I think its weakest element is the antagonist, specifically Ronan the Accuser. Meanwhile, I find “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” to be an inferior installment, but Ego is a fantastic antagonist. With this film coming between those two for me, I would say the antagonist of “Vol. 3” does the same. The High Evolutionary is fantastically performed by Chukwudi Iwuji. He is a little over the top at times, but even some of his more over the top moments, fit with what is going on. Plus, he was fairly intimidating in terms of his actions, motivations, and line delivery. I would not want to be the one responsible for ruining his day.
When I look back at at the previous “Guardians of the Galaxy” films, I would sum this franchise up to be the “Star Wars” of the MCU. Because aside from taking place in space, there is a lot of crazy action, futuristic weaponry, and a rag tag team of charismatic individuals. Some could also make the comparison to “Star Trek” if they wanted to, I could see a ton of similarities there as well. As for this third movie, I feel like the “Trek” vibes increase with this installment because it feels more allegorical than the previous two. It is not to say the previous two had bad stories, but I picked up on the message of the film a bit more quickly in regards to how it handles experimentation and animal cruelty. “Star Trek” over the years, and more recently, “The Orville,” has dealt with serious issues that affect our society despite being set somewhat outside of it. Not to pick a fight, I am more of a “Star Wars” fan than a “Star Trek” fan. But a strength of “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is that it does what the “Star Trek” franchise does best, and that tendency is going to stick with me. You could argue that “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” is an allegory for animal cruelty with the Canto Bight sequence, but that is a smaller chunk of the film. Plus, that sequence, not to mention that film, did not emotionally resonate with me as much.
One complaint I will bring up regarding movies I do not like is that sometimes they will feel like two movies in one. In fact, Marvel, despite me liking most of their movies recently, falls victim to this complaint as well. “Thor: Love and Thunder” mostly blends comedy and drama seamlessly at times, but there are times where the comedy is stretched too far. “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is in the same boat. It is a massive adventure that tries to maintain the small-scale lightheartedness of its predecessors. When it comes to this installment, it is overly silly at one moment, but quickly transitions to being flat out dramatic in another. There is almost no between. For the record, both of those movies barely received positive scores from me. Although the tonal inconsistency happens to be the biggest flaw for both projects. “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is another movie that could have fallen victim to this flaw. However, it does not despite having two major stories dominating the screen at every other moment. The reason is because of one story’s seamless connection to the other, without making one feel out of place. They had an equal partnership that delivered equally satisfying results.
And ultimately, that is the best adjective I can use to sum up “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” It is a satisfying finale. It takes the characters that people have come to know and love, and uses them in ways that triggers all sorts of emotions. Is this the best movie in the franchise? No. The first installment is still my favorite, but I find this latest sequel to be a significant step up from the second. James Gunn does not mess around with this film. It was said that this would be the finale for this group of characters, and as a finale, there are only a few ways it could have been executed better. But as far as this group of characters go, they end their arcs fantastically. No spoilers, but there was one line towards the end of the movie from one character that caught me off guard in the best possible way. I would not be surprised if we see some of these characters again in the future, say in an “Avengers” installment. But as far as the “Guardians of the Galaxy” franchise goes, I would be fine if we never get another one of these films as long as the MCU continues to exist. Maybe talk to me again in ten, fifteen years, we will see. But right now, I do not need to see any more knowing how things conclude. Plus, with James Gunn now at DC, all I can think about is what the process must be like to find a potential successor to him if this were to go on.
One last thing before we move on, if you have read many of my past Marvel reviews, my biggest fear regarding this universe is that with each movie, it feels like I, as an audience member, am being assigned homework. With the Disney+ shows now being a thing, the universe is starting to feel like overkill. Thankfully, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” feels like less of a commercial for other Marvel content than say “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” or “Black Widow,” which utilize themselves to advertise upcoming content that is not in their specific medium. Personally, it feels a bit tacky. Now, there is something exposed in “The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special” that is addressed in this movie, but I do not think you would need to spend money on Disney+ to watch the special to find out what that something is. As for the theatrically released movies, I think the previous “Guardians” films and maybe the last two “Avengers” installments would be my recommended prerequisites. That said, you could probably have a good time watching this movie on its own without any prior material being fed to you. For a 32nd film in an ongoing universe, that is a huge compliment.
In the end, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is a thrill ride. Visually stunning, narratively pleasing, and massively satisfying. Another Marvel franchise now has a trilogy. It is amazing how far we have come. Is “Guardians of the Galaxy” my favorite of the Marvel trilogies? As much as liked this film in addition to the original, the second film keeps that from being a reality. It is a solid trilogy and despite my neverending flack for the second film, it does have its moments. But I think as far as a consistent run goes, I think “Iron Man,” “Spider-Man,” and “Captain America” reign supreme. I still think when I add up my scores for these films, the “Guardians” films outranks the first three “Thor” installments and the recently completed “Ant-Man” trilogy. But unlike the recent “Ant-Man” trilogy capper, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” was a ton of fun. I went in hoping to have a good time, and I ended up having a great time. It is not without its flaws. Before I forget, I must admit the climax, while entertaining, is occasionally bloated and goes on for a bit longer than I would have anticipated. Although that statement feels like less of a problem when I also remember that it is responsible for what is now my favorite action sequence in the franchise. With that said, I am going to give “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” an 8/10.
“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! I have plenty of reviews coming soon including “Renfield,” “BlackBerry,” and “The Blackening,” the last of which does not widely release until June, but I got to see it last night through a free screening so I will have my thoughts on the film when possible. Tomorrow I will be going to see “Fast X,” which despite my appreciation for certain parts of the franchise, kind of feels like an obligation, but hey, it’s a movie. Either way, all of these reviews are coming soon! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite MCU trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Cocaine Bear” is directed by Elizabeth Banks (Pitch Perfect 2, Charlie’s Angels) and stars Keri Russell (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Mission: Impossible III), O’Shea Jackson Jr. (Long Shot, Straight Outta Compton), Christian Convery (Sweet Tooth, Playing with Fire), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story, Hail, Caesar!), Brooklynn Prince (The Florida Project, Home Before Dark), Isiah Whitlock Jr. (The Good Cop, The Wire), Margo Martindale (August: Osage County, The Americans), and Ray Liotta (Goodfellas, Field of Dreams). In this film, people of various identities must survive against a bear jacked up on cocaine.
If I had the authority to make a textbook definition for the utterance “truth is stranger than fiction,” I would just insert “Cocaine Bear” and move on. “Cocaine Bear” sounds like a campy creature feature from the title alone. And in some ways it is. Although despite being a horror comedy that should not be taken too seriously, it must be noted that “Cocaine Bear” is based on true events.
You heard me right. A bear did cocaine. And they made a movie, specifically one that takes tons of liberties, about it. Best idea ever.
I have been excited for this movie ever since they announced the project in the middle of 2021. While I did not know how the actual movie would turn out, I even put it in my top 10 most anticipated movies of 2023 because I could not stop thinking about it on a frequent basis. What also helped it is the excellently produced trailer that perfectly showcased the over the top comedic nature this film was aiming for. Also, it was directed by Elizabeth Banks, one of my favorite actresses and possibly the best game show host on television right now. Although it must be noted that her directing career has not intrigued me as much. I did not enjoy the first “Pitch Perfect,” therefore I never got around to watching the second after all these years. Her next feature, 2019’s “Charlie’s Angels” had some okay action here and there, but it was lacking in flair. It felt rather pedestrian and suffered from an average marketing campaign.
But “Cocaine Bear” looked like a completely different ballgame. It looked funny, occasionally scary, and seemed to have just the right amount of dumb to avoid feeling overwhelming.
Now that I finally got to see this movie, sorry, no, once in a lifetime cinematic event… What did I think of it?
It was okay.
This is the kind of movie that would go over really well at a pitch meeting. In fact, part of what made me go see “Cocaine Bear” is the idea behind it. Who does not want to see a bear go haywire after ingesting an illegal drug? It is the same way I felt about “Moonfall” before that movie came out. I did not know if it would be good or bad, but that idea is anything but ugly. It would be cool to see what would happen if that became a feature. While “Cocaine Bear” is better than “Moonfall,” this does not suggest I was not a tad a underwhelmed with this creature feature that honestly does the bare minimum to be watchable.
Unlike Elizabeth Banks’s past features, she did not write “Cocaine Bear.” That honor belongs to Jimmy Warden, who only has one previous screenplay credit. He was one of the writers behind “The Babysitter: Killer Queen,” a straight to Netflix film. This makes “Cocaine Bear” Warden’s first theatrical written effort. While I found “Cocaine Bear” to have its comedic moments, it could have been funnier. Most of the funnier moments in the movie are already in the trailer. When I come out of a good comedy, I usually end up quoting one or two lines from it either with a friend, family member, or in cases like this one where I go to the movies alone, amongst myself. I am having a difficult time remembering any specific line from this movie that I did not already see in the marketing that stood out. Except for the one that specifies the gender of the bear, which honestly would have been funnier if I did not already know what it was thanks to social media.
I do not hate any of the characters in the film, but this is not a film that I would sit down and watch again because the characters stand out. That said, I think the two young kids, Henry and Dee Dee, played by Christian Convery and Brooklynn Prince play well off each other. They are two of the more admirable cogs that mesh this movie together. I bought into their chemistry, I liked the reason behind why they were going into the forest. I mean, almost every kid would dare to skip school every once in a while. I also like how this movie was set in the 1980s, which is when the story that inspired this movie took place, because if it were set today, Keri Russell’s character, who has to search for these two, would just call Dee Dee’s cell phone if she can be trusted with one. This makes it a bit harder for the Keri Russell to track the two down since they cannot simply be geolocated. The other thing I liked about the two kids is the way they were used for comedic purposes. Not just in terms of their dialogue, but their actions. This movie is not afraid to push the boundaries. Without giving too much away, there is a moment where the kids dare each other to try cocaine. I will let you see the rest for yourselves.
I should also note that this is one of the last projects to ever feature Ray Liotta, who recently passed away. He does a a good job with the material given to him as this kingpin who is after the cocaine that ends up lost in the woods. Liotta’s character is one of the standout personalities on screen and had much of my attention throughout the runtime. Knowing that this film is one of Liotta’s last is unfortunate, but it if there is any bright side, “Cocaine Bear” is a halfway decent film, and he is also likable in it. That said, the situation is still sad. Ray Liotta will be missed. May he rest in peace.
From start to finish, the bear has a commanding presence. Every scene featuring the bear is a hoot. The chase sequences, the kills, the rampages, the blood, all of it! Even the one scene where a bunch of people watching it snort cocaine is a thing of beauty. Seeing the bear do its thing in that moment is one of the more laughable scenes in the film. The movie is called “Cocaine Bear,” and it certainly lives up to its name.
I think the biggest problem with “Cocaine Bear” is that the film’s cast probably would have been better have they shaved one or two names off. I understand that the movie needs enough people to tell a story. And the plots and subplots for the most part do their job. But at times, it feels a little overwhelming when the movie is about the tales of a coke-fueled furry creature. I have no real digs to give other than the fact that the movie feels a tad overstuffed in its 95 minute runtime. Would I recommend “Cocaine Bear?” Well, I think some of you might find it to be an inevitable watch the moment you see the title. As bad as I think “Sharknado” is, a reason why that movie appears watchable at first is because of the title. They say not to judge a book by its cover, but with a title like “COCAINE BEAR,” it is undoubtedly going to get attention. But in regards to it being a movie, I think there are better options out there. Then again, this film manages to be… somewhat bearable.
In the end, “Cocaine Bear” is neither bad or good. It is not that powerful of a drug. It finds itself somewhere in the middle. I love Elizabeth Banks in a lot of projects like “The LEGO Movie,” “Slither,” “Zack and Miri,” “Brightburn,” “The Hunger Games,” and I even thought she was great in the “Power Rangers” movie. That said, if she continues to direct movies, I hope we get something better out of her than this. She is not a terrible director. But not only does the writing fail to supplement her efforts, but I do not know if she has a flair to her work yet that would make her stand out. She is not a bad. She gets the job done. I just hope whatever she does next is a step up from this. The acting is okay, the bear is admirable, and the movie might be good to watch at least one time to see what all the hoopla is about. But it is not the next Best Picture by any means. I am going to give “Cocaine Bear” a 6/10.
“Cocaine Bear” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, VOD, and Peacock.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new movie “Air.” I just saw the film days ago and I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it with you all. Also, I will soon be reviewing “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” which is available in select theaters now. Additionally, I will be talking about the 1993 “Super Mario Bros.” movie. I want to talk about it sooner than later, but I just have not found the perfect time to sit down and write about it. However, that review should be on its way when the time is right. 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 “Cocaine Bear?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie based on a true story? Or, what is a movie that you like that is based on a story so strange that it just so happens to be true? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic, both of whom have worked on Cartoon Network’s “Teen Titans GO!”. This film stars Chris Pratt (The LEGO Movie, Guardians of the Galaxy), Anya Taylor-Joy (Emma., Last Night in Soho), Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Fist Fight), Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Keegan-Michael Key (Let’s Be Cops, Keanu), Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party), Fred Armisen (Saturday Night Live, Final Space), Sebastian Maniscalco (Green Book, The Irishman), Charles Martinet, and Kevin Michael Richardson (Like Family, Lilo & Stitch). In this adaptation inspired by the popular video game franchise, Brooklyn-based plumber Mario must save his brother, Luigi, from the wrath of Bowser, a fiendish Koopa who has his sights set on ruling the world.
Few things in my life have had more nostalgic attachment than “Mario.” It is one of the few standout things from my childhood that I have taken with me into my adulthood. I still enjoy playing the “Super Mario Bros.” games, “Mario Kart,” “Super Smash Bros.,” and many of the other “Mario” spinoff titles that have come to fruition. So it might surprise you to know that when I heard Illumination would be developing a movie based on the popular IP, I had reservations, despite being curious about the film. I was worried that a studio like Illumination would make the film overly immature and resort to fart jokes every other second. And having seen some of Illumination’s work myself before and after said announcement, my excitement for the film did not grow. These are the same guys who made “The Grinch,” they have also made another one of my least favorite animated films, “The Secret Life of Pets 2,” which follows up an average first film. The only films from this studio I ended up caring about, which still scream lowest common denominator, are the “Sing” movies.
At the same time though, I also think one of the biggest offenses to cinema is the 1993 flick “Super Mario Bros.,” starring Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo as the main duo. Part of me also thought, if movies can be that bad, the IP can only go up. Having seen this new animated take on the “Super Mario Bros.” property, I would say it did. But even that is not saying a lot, because it is not Shakespeare. That said, if there is one thing that distinguishes this “Super Mario Bros.” outing compared to the 1993 predecessor, it is the film’s tendency to actually feel like it belongs in the same realm as the games.
The biggest compliment I can give “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is that even though it makes room, rightfully so, for adaptation, it is extremely faithful to its source material. Granted, it has an advantage that a lot of other material does not, it has plenty to pick from. Nevertheless, I think if you are a fan of the video games, or have played them at least once in your life, this movie could bring back memories. This movie’s animation style, while still being a product of its own nature, is reminiscent of the games themselves. It is colorful, bright, and full of life. The characters themselves even have a distinguished sparkle and shine that many other properties do not possess. Even Bowser, who is this movie’s epitome of evil, has some gloss to him. Illumination has clearly taken all the money they and Universal have earned on selling Minions merch and thrown it straight to the wall.
Some might say that the style of “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is too safe. If this refers to the design of the film, I do not see the problem. It looks beautiful and unlike the 1993 film, a great counterpart to the games. There are some far-fetched elements in this film, sure, but as an audience member I can suspend my disbelief to a certain point. There is one point two-thirds in, which looked cool, that kind of ruined said suspension, but the sequence itself was still kind of fun nevertheless.
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room, the voice acting. One of the most controversial aspects of this film for the past couple years were the voices of these characters. The burning question that has to be answered is this… How is Chris Pratt? To my surprise, he is fine. I am not going to say he stands out significantly, but he has developed a Mario that works for the universe at hand. Do I think they should have cast someone else? Maybe, but this could have been worse having seen the result. In my mind, I would prefer that maybe they found someone of Italian heritage to do the voice, but that is just me. But I think Pratt surprisingly fits as the Brooklyn plumber. Although Charlie Day is excellent as Luigi. I would say it is near perfect casting. It also makes sense because I have often imagined Charlie Day as a bit of a scrawny, timid type. While it is not the best movie, if you have ever seen “Fist Fight,” it is easy to see why Day could fit in as Luigi. I think when it comes to these two brothers, they have good chemistry, which is not only great because they are in the title, but much of the movie’s objective revolves around their bond.
I also like what they did with Peach in this film. I think Anya Taylor-Joy, who is an incredible actress, is a solid casting choice for the character. In real life, she has this aura to her, and I can say that having been to a Q&A where she was onstage. As for said aura, it is presented in this film from start to finish. Her voice is a perfect match for a highly respected princess. I like this film’s take on the character, also from a story perspective.
However the real standout of “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” in terms of voice casting is the one character I have been excited to witness ever since the first trailer, Jack Black as Bowser. Unlike Chris Pratt at times, who, again, does not do a bad job in this movie, it was difficult for me to see Jack Black through this rugged monster. Maybe part of it is because I am accustomed to seeing Jack Black in certain roles, to the point where it was difficult to picture him as a bad guy. While it may not be his best performance, after all “Jumanji” has proven how challenging it must have been for someone like Black to play someone who is technically a teenage girl, his work here stands out significantly. They say a movie is only as good as its villain, and while “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is not a masterpiece, Bowser’s presence makes the film worth the price of admission. He is intimidating, ruthless, and funny. While he is evil, I almost wanted to root for him at times because Black makes the character as compelling as he can with his performance.
As mentioned, this film is not a masterpiece, and part of it is because of the writing. I will give credit to Illumination for possibly creating one of their more mature scripts in their library so far. There was less toilet humor than I thought there would be in a “Mario” movie made by Illumination. That said, while I have sometimes complained about some movies being too slow, this movie is special because it is actually too fast. Sure, it is simple to understand. Nothing major flew over my head. But when it comes to the film’s scenes, some of them went by too quickly. In a movie that is about a journey, much of that journey feels trimmed. I have complained about certain movies like “Wonder Woman 1984” or even movies I enjoyed such as “The Irishman” for being, or feeling, longer than they should be. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” not only clocks in around 92 minutes, which is not the shortest runtime I have come across, but still. The movie also happens to gloss over moments that would make other events that happen in said movie feel more rewarding or satisfying. However, there are some humorous lines, the characters have finely tuned arcs, and for the most part, the voice actors execute these lines to the best of their ability.
If I have another critique, and this is something that is about as personal as it could get, it is the soundtrack. And I am not talking about Brian Tyler’s score. The score is quite good, there are some great songs, in addition to adaptations of prior material from the games. I am talking about the use of other songs like “Holding Out for Hero” or “Take On Me.” These are not bad songs, but not only are they overplayed in media, but when it comes to “Mario,” lyric-based songs like those are not the first things that come to mind. There is one song in the movie, specifically “No Sleep Till Brooklyn,” that fits in its scene, but that is it. I think the problem I have with the soundtrack is that the movie spends time in the Mushroom Kingdom, which establishes itself as this fantastical environment. It is somewhat disconnected from our reality. With that in mind, I have never once thought in my life, playing “Mario” titles, that I should play 1980s pop songs whilst hitting question blocks. I always say there is room for adaptation, but this did not work. I would prefer if for the whole time, the music would just be score-based. Maybe insert another original or something. I do not know, this is a personal preference. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is very much a fantasy title, and when it comes to fantasy, I wish less of our stuff were placed into it. Granted, the people of the Mushroom Kingdom do not know these songs, but I rest my case.
I would say this is a fine “Mario” movie that would give a large group of “Mario” fans what they want. As established, it is faithful to the source material, it looks like the games with some slight differences, the music choices for the most part are like the games, and the sound design does not spark any major differences. That said, whether it is going to win over someone who has never played the games is another story. Would this make people want to play the “Mario” games for the first time? Well, obviously if they like the movie, it is always a possibility. But I feel like if you are not tuned into the “Mario” universe through the games, the same might be true through this movie. But if you like the “Mario” games, I would recommend this movie. I am not endorsing the film as a must-see cinematic event, but if you can find a cheap matinee show or if you want to wait for streaming, be my guest. But even with this statement in mind, I give this recommendation with a certain looseness. There are better movies out right now. If you have played the “Mario” games and they are not your thing, it would be harder to recommend this title. Although if you have children, this could be a decent time at the movies with family. It is not going to significantly insult anyone’s intelligence, but it is definitely not going to help it either. It is a perfectly acceptable, but not great, “Mario” adaptation. Did I want more out of this movie? Sure, but on the bright side, it is brilliant compared to the 1993 disaster.
One last thing, before you leave the movie, there are two scenes during the credits. One in the middle and one at the very end. If post-credits material is your thing, then do not get up when the movie ends. Consider this your public service announcement.
In the end, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is a bit misleading. Because despite the title, it is not that super. If anything, it is super average. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” does a lot of things in an okay manner. It is a little fun. It is a little humorous. But it is also a little paint by numbers. Is it cringe-inducing? No. But is it smile-inducing? Not necessarily. It is a middle of the road movie that takes one of the most popular IPs of all time and executes an ordinary script in its skin. Yes, many of the games are as simple as rescuing a princess from a monster. That said, these are not the games. I have fun playing various “Mario” titles because of how the gameplay is laid out. The main objective of the crew behind “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is not to make the gameplay fun. In something like this, there is not, nor should there be gameplay. When you take the gameplay away, you have to enhance something else. I am not bringing my Switch Pro Controller into the theater to control these characters, I am watching the characters themselves. Therefore, I wish the characters, in addition to the story surrounding them, were enhanced. But both of those aspects feel thin. They could have gone deeper. Everything feels rushed. The most notable standouts of the movie are some of song choices, Jack Black as Bowser, and the animation. Everything else for the most part is a far cry. I am going to give “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” a 6/10.
“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is now playing in theaters everywhere, including formats like 3D, IMAX, and Dolby Cinema. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Speaking of “Super Mario Bros.,” pretty soon I will be reviewing the 1993 “Super Mario Bros.” movie, which I have already watched. I will be writing my thoughts on it soon. I do not have an official date as to when the review will be dropping, but you can expect a review very soon.
Also, if you have been following Scene Before or have known me in real life, you would know that I have started watching particular anime titles in the past and have been trying to make the medium a part of my ongoing content. One of my next reviews, supposedly the very next, is going to be for “Suzume,” which hits U.S. theaters this weekend. I am very excited for this film, as it is directed by Makoto Shinkai, who has previously directed “Weathering with You,” in addition one to of my new favorite movies ever, “Your Name.” I am curious to see what he does here, and I hope the movie ends up being great. I will have my thoughts soon! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Super Mario Bros. Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Mario” game? For me, I would say “Super Mario Galaxy.” I love the levels, the music, the style, everything. Plus, it is scientifically proven that the inclusion of outer space makes everything better. Let me know your picks down below! And I will include spinoff titles! “Paper Mario” is fair game. “Mario Party,” “Mario Kart,” “Luigi’s Mansion,” you name it! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” is directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (Game Night, Vacation) and stars Chris Pine (Wonder Woman, Star Trek), Michelle Rodriguez (The Fast and the Furious, Widows), Regé-Jean Page (Bridgerton, The Gray Man), Justice Smith (Pokemon: Detective Pikachu, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom), Sophia Lillis (It, Gretel & Hansel), and Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and Funeral, Bridget Jones’s Diary). This is film is inspired by the popular role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons and follows four individuals who join forces and embark on a quest to find a lost relic.
I have never played Dungeons & Dragons. I know relatives who have previously partaken in the game in their youth, I have friends who enjoy the game, and I am well aware of certain aspects of it in our current culture. That said, I have never sat down to play it. Despite this notion, I nevertheless had some excitement for “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves.” Chris Pine is a charming actor, the trailers looked promising, and I thought this could be an enjoyable, lighthearted time. Now that I have seen the movie, I can confirm that is exactly what I got. No more, no less.
This movie does not reinvent the cinematic wheel, nor does it flatten any cinematic tires. It is just a plain good time that feels reminiscent of a modern Marvel movie if it had a baby with “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” and “Game Night.” This comparison should not surprise me, nor some other people for that matter. After all, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, who in addition to directing this movie, also wrote the screenplay. If you seen “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” you have these two to partially thank. After all, they wrote that screenplay too, which had its fair share of wit and charm. Like “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” this film is a quickly-paced quest through outlandish, attractive environments with four main cast members. As for the “Game Night” comparison, this film, albeit in a much different manner, revolves around a game played amongst friends. For “Game Night” it is a murder mystery, while “Dungeons & Dragons” takes inspiration from source material of the same name. Additionally, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein directed both films.
This movie is led by Chris Pine (center left), who in addition to having an advantage as to being one of the chosen few talented, hunky, lightly-colored-haired dudes named Chris in Hollywood, is exactly the kind of star a movie like this needed. Sure, on the surface, there is the name recognition, but beyond that, Pine masterfully executes some of the movie’s standout humor. He has a presence to him, much like Chris Hemsworth, where he simply induces charm just by letting himself be in front of the camera and utter a few magic words. If “Wonder Woman” has shown anything, Chris Pine can be funny. If “Dungeons & Dragons” has shown anything, Chris Pine can be very funny. There are some great lines out of Pine in this film. One of my particular favorite moments involving his character is, believe it or not, in the trailer. He is talking about one of his strengths, specifically making plans. And if the plan fails, he comes up with a new one, and the same thing would happen there if that backup plan does not work out. Therefore, Doric (Sophia Lillis), a tiefling druid, pipes in and says, “So you make plans that fail?”. Nothing like savagery to lighten the mood.
My favorite scene in “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” takes place about a third of the way in, where we have already established our main cast, and they have started their quest. One of their stops is a cemetery. Courtesy of wizard Simon Aumar (Justice Smith), the ensemble takes the moments they have to speak to the dead to help them find out what they need to know. Not only is it an effective way to deliver exposition, but some of the lines are hilarious. Every inkling of this scene is gold. I found myself occasionally laughing like a maniac during this portion of the film.
That said, this film, as mentioned before, is not the most revolutionary addition to the halls of cinematic history. Although given the track record of adapting D&D, this is actually a pleasant surprise of a win given how the IP was adapted before in 2000 and that movie currently has a 9% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. Although despite this film being a victory for those who made it and the audience, it is probably not going to be nominated for any Oscars. The look of the film is passable, but I have seen better. There are also some predictable moments, but at the same time, the script, based on what was brought to screen, never had any real significant flaws that stood out, so I can forgive some predictability here and there.
Although what I did not predict is for some of the camerawork to stand out as much as it does. This should not have been a huge surprise given this is the duo who did “Game Night,” but there are one or two, extended takes that took my breath away. Much like “Game Night’s” egg-throwing extended take, there is a scene early on where we see Doric’s abilities in the spotlight that had my attention. If I were to watch some behind the scenes on the movie, that is one of the things I would like to see how they did.
This is the best compliment I can give to “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves.” As cool of a concept as I find Dungeons & Dragons to be, I have never played the game because I do not know what time I have, who to play with, and where to start. After seeing this movie, those concerns have not been resolved. That said, I was not expecting them to be. Although having never played the game, I found this movie quite entertaining. I never felt lost. And as a movie, it was worth my time. It is one thing for someone to say that they are a D&D aficionado and say they love this movie. This might not always be the case, but there is some potential predisposal in play. If you can take a D&D know-it-nothing and give them a great cinematic experience, that’s another thing. That is what this movie did. I recommend this movie for those who enjoy playing D&D and even those who have shied away from the game. D&D fans may be attracted by the preexisiting IP, but they might as well stay for the lighthearted and thumbs up-worthy adventure.
In the end, “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” is a magical, finely realized blast of an adventure. I had a great time with it, and I would definitely recommend seeing this by yourself or with friends and family. As I have said, there is a hint of a “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”-like flair in this film, so if you like that film or its sequel, “The Next Level,” this could be another fun film to add to your watchlist. The characters are likable. The story is simple but effective. The humor stands out. And as someone who has never played D&D, I never felt alienated. I had a great time with “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves,” and I have a feeling some of you reading this will do the same. I am going to give “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” a 7/10.
“Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! As much as I recommend “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves,” it is extremely likely going to get blue shelled at the box office this weekend by possibly the most prominent video game-based project in cinematic history, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” By the way, that is going to be my next review! Stay tuned! Speaking of “Super Mario Bros.,” I will also soon be reviewing the 1993 “Super Mario Bros.” film, which is probably going to be more fun for you guys than it is for me… If you want to see 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 “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves?” What did you think about it? Or, have you played D&D? What did you do while playing the game? Or, if you are playing it, what are you doing now? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is directed by Peyton Reed, who also directed the prior two “Ant-Man” films. This film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ghostbusters: Afterlife), Evangeline Lilly (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Lost), Jonathan Majors (Lovecraft Country, Devotion), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Freaky), Bill Murray (Caddyshack, Groundhog Day), Michelle Pfeiffer (Hairspray, Batman Returns), and Michael Douglas (Fatal Attraction, Wall Street). This is the third installment to the “Ant-Man” franchise, in addition to being the 31st film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In this latest adventure, Scott, Hope, Cassie, Hank, and Janet are taken into the Quantum Realm via a signal device. When they find themselves in this larger than life environment, they must familiarize themselves with its surroundings and survive. One such obstacle is Kang the Conqueror (Majors), who claims he can allow Scott to make up for lost time with his daughter.
“Ant-Man” is not my favorite franchise within the MCU, although I have always found it to be one that has been continuously distinct. For one thing, these films have always come out a couple months after “Avengers” titles. Specifically “Age of Ultron” and “Infinity War.” I have a feeling these films were placed around these release schedules on purpose. Not just for how it fits in the main story, but because of the vibe these movies try to shoot for. In these stories, Ant-Man is not only small in size, but so are the stakes. It is not say there are not any stakes at all, but compared to “Avengers” titles, where practically the whole world is in peril, the main objective is to save a neighborhood, save a community. After “Avengers: Infinity War,” it felt nice to have a more happy go lucky adventure with these characters in “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” I cannot say the movie was great, but there were glimmers of joy to be had. Overall, these movies are not packed with as much doom and gloom as other adventures the MCU has to offer. This time around, it is a little different.
This film, in addition to starting phase 5 and setting the stage what is to come, prominently features Kang the Conqueror, played by Jonathan Majors. This is not Majors’ first outing in the MCU, as he played the “He Who Remains” variant of this character in the Disney+ series “Loki.” Majors did not have a ton to do in the series, as he was only around for the season finale, but he had a particular, non-glorious purpose in the series as he does in this movie. While I cannot say He Who Remains was the major highlight for me in “Loki,” one compliment I can give to Jonathan Majors in “Ant-Man in the Wasp: Quantumania” is that he steals every scene he is in. There was a lot of hype going in regarding his character and I can confirm it is real. Is it the best MCU villain since Thanos? That depends. I will be real with you, the franchise has actually had some decent villains since his appearance, and I may be cheating a bit since it is a progression of a character that was done in another fashion, but I believe “Spider-Man: No Way Home’s” take on Green Goblin was incredible. Possibly the best use of the character on screen. I would say for me, Kang comes close to that level.
Speaking of the film’s stars, let’s talk about Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd has always maintained a certain down to earth feel within his Scott Lang character with each appearance despite going around in tights. I have always liked that. This time around, while still emitting a similar vibe to his previous appearances, Lang starts off this film a bit differently than before. For one thing, the character has evolved with each go, becoming more and more well known. He is a hero, an Avenger, an icon on the streets. In fact, he starts the movie by promoting his new book, “Look Out for the Little Guy.” I like this concept. I think if there is one thing recent Marvel movies have been doing on a consistent basis that fits into the timeline, it is referencing the progression of the universal canon and its characters. It makes sense that Scott Lang, who has probably burnt himself out a little from being a hero, would resort to writing a book about himself and selling it to an audience. It would make for a page turning story and a chance to continue his fame. If there is one thing that is noticeable about the Scott Lang character, and the movie in general, is that it feels like a tale of two stories, or vibes. One vibe is the consistent “so small it feels big” nature of the previous two installments. The other is this “Avengers-level” feel that kicks in somewhere around the Quantum Realm. There is a point in this movie, and Scott Lang as a character is evident of this, where the lighthearted nature I was previously used to seeing kind of takes a backseat. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
This time around, there is a new performer in the shoes of Cassie Lang, specifically Kathryn Newton. This makes sense. In the MCU timeline, there was a time jump for five years, therefore it makes it a tad harder to believe that Abby Ryder Fortson, who played Cassie in the prior “Ant-Man” installments, is the age this movie suggests she is. I was excited to hear Kathryn Newton, an actress who I adored since “Blockers,” would be playing Cassie this time around. She does a fine job here. She is not the standout of the movie, but I thought she brought her own sense of joy to this role even though this is a more mature version of this character. I adored Fortson’s performance as Cassie in the previous works because she matched the happy go lucky nature of the film. Newton, while definitely another animal, maintains some of those consistencies. This is not the first time a teen Cassie has been in the MCU, Emma Fuhrmann made an appearance as the character in “Avengers: Endgame.” But I nevertheless think Newton did a swell job with this film in particular.
My biggest problem with “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been a consistent problem in the MCU lately. The effects. Now let me be fair, there are various aspects of the Quantum Realm, which is pretty much all CGI, that look breathtaking There are a lot of visuals in this film that pop. If anything, I would put “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the same boat as “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which has plenty of visuals to enjoy, but there are also some noticeable duds. Despite what I said about the Quantum Realm looking nice, there are also particular shots where I thought I was looking at a green screen or a StageCraft setup. Despite how I did not end up loving “Avatar: The Way of Water,” my problems with the film never concerned its looks. What made that film so awe-inspiring is how real everything looked despite being almost entirely done through computers, motion capture, or digital effects. Even though I disagree with Martin Scorcese’s opinion that Marvel movies are nothing more than theme parks, I will say that “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is almost one of the more theme park-esque adventures in the MCU because it is mostly about spectacle, but it almost utilizes its gimmick too much to the point where nothing feels authentic.
In reality, as immersed as I felt at times into the whole Quantum Realm universe, which was definitely aided by the IMAX experience, the problem with the Quantum Realm that it occasionally felt like a universe that was created for a screen and not one that felt like I could go into it. The best comparison I could use in this case would be to say that the Quantum Realm universe is similar to the environment explored in “Strange World.” It tries to be bonkers, but it gets caught up in its bonkers nature that nothing feels real. “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” despite being an indescribably weird movie that travels to many different universes, feels more real than “Quantumania” and “Strange World.”
Speaking of things that do not feel real, I want to talk about M.O.D.O.K.. Not for long though because there were certain things about the character I did not know going into this film. One thing I will say about M.O.D.O.K. is the same thing I will say about the CGI. At times it works, at other times, it is taken to such an extreme that it felt out of place. There is a certain reveal in this movie that kind of makes sense, but it also spawned a problem that constantly came up. The character’s design. There is a certain “design” if you will, to this character that is so off-putting that it makes Power Rangers costumes look more realistic. I will not say more. This is all I have to give on the character. It adds to the plate of this film’s occasionally lackluster visual outlook.
But at the same time, this is honestly disappointing to say because the MCU, which has continued to set a competitive bar for its visuals year after year despite having multiple movies come out, is starting to worsen its craft. Part of it is because this universe is focusing way more on quantity than it used to. With so many shows on Disney+ in addition to the movies coming out months apart, the MCU is starting to feel like school instead of a fun franchise. The movies are part of the core classroom curriculum, the television shows are homework, and the shorter form specials like “The Guardians of the Galaxy: Holiday Special” are extra credit. But when it was just a bunch of movies, it felt simple and easy to understand. Now having watched “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” for instance, one of the questions I have had before, during, and after watching said movie regards how many people needed to watch “WandaVision” to fully appreciate or understand everything that was going on. As much as I enjoyed certain shows like “WandaVision” and “Ms. Marvel,” if there were a way to get back to a time where the Marvel Cinematic Universe were only CINEMA specific, I would like to find out about it. The quality has suffered while the quantity has grown. If I had to give one solid mark to phase 4, it is that while no movie is perfect, I liked all of them. I am just waiting for the day when I can love each movie I see, or not quickly forget about one as much. I loved “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” I loved “Shang-Chi.” But I would rather forget about a vast majority of the MCU shows. “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is a sign that the MCU still has its wheels on the wagon, but if they continue to pump out as much content as they are making right now, they might need to realign those wheels a bit.
In fact, one of my bigger problems with this film and how it connects to the whole “see this to understand that” thing is one of the post-credits scenes. Which by the way, if you are planning to stay after the movie, there are two. For the record, the post-credit scenes are not awful. In fact, I liked both of them. But the second movie harkens back to my worry with the MCU feeling like school. Because one of the scenes were specific to an upcoming television program. My apprehension, which could go away, I reserve the right to change my mind, is that this teased television event might not be understood as well unless you saw “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I am not saying this has happened with every recent Marvel project, and I am not saying it will. That said, this movie reinstates my fear that it will.
“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” seems to bridge the gap between where the previous saga, the Infinity Saga, culminates, and sets a stage as to where the Multiverse Saga could be going. This does not start the new saga. We are just starting phase 5 and the Multiverse Saga already kicked off in phase 4. Although one of the most poignant notions about “Avengers: Endgame” is the realization of how much people have missed for five years. When Thanos snapped in “Avengers: Infinity War,” he basically initiated a five-year, luck-based, societal imprisonment. Meanwhile, Lang spent a ton of that time stuck in the Quantum Realm. But the film manages to bridge a gap between lost time and the breaking of the multiverse. It is essentially saying we are moving on from one thing to the next. Unfortunately, it also means that a seemingly investing idea about recovering lost time occasionally takes a back seat in the film for more bonkers, seemingly brooding CGI mayhem. I could tell Peyton Reed was intentionally making a film that separates itself from its two predecessors. I am not saying “Ant-Man” is not allowed to be serious. But I am saying that “Ant-Man” works better when it is lighthearted, but still action-packed.
In the end, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” ranks down the middle for me in terms of the “Ant-Man” trilogy. While this is not as good as the first movie, there are more redeeming elements for me in this third movie than the second. It honestly may come down to pure personal tastes. At its core, this is a film that is full of inconsistencies. In one moment, the story is lighthearted. In another, it is dark. In one moment, the effects are stunning. In another, they are crap. In one moment, there is tons of comedy. In another, the humor takes a backseat. The film is not abysmal, but to call it a masterpiece would be generous. If anything, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” reminds me of “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Both films are wildly inconsistent, despite there being a series of moments that land on their feet with ease. In fact, another way both films are similar is their score, because I am going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 6/10.
I was going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 7/10 because I had a great time with it in the theater, but the more I thought about it. A lot of my negatives, in addition to the inconsistencies, stood out, and that muddied the waters a bit. It also seems to work more as setup for what is to come as opposed to a self-contained story. This is not to say the story is uninteresting, but its promises seem to stand out more than what is happening right now. Not a bad movie, but not a great movie either. Nevertheless, it might be a good time at the theater, so I would still, by a slight edge, recommend it.
“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Also, be sure to stay tuned for March 5th, because I will be dropping the 5th Annual Jack Awards! This is the latest edition of my painstakingly prepared film awards show, hopefully to brilliant execution. In addition, there will be video content which will also be posted on my YouTube channel. If you would like to vote for Best Picture for this year’s show, you can do that by clicking the link right here! It will take you to a Google form where you can choose one of the ten movies I previously nominated. May the Best Picture win. To check out the official nominations, click here! 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 “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania?” What did you think about it? Or, which “Ant-Man” movie is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A Man Called Otto” is directed by Marc Forster (World War Z, The Kite Runner) and stars Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away) as Otto. The performers joining him in the cast are Mariana Treviño (How to Break Up with Your Douchebag, Overboard), Rachel Keller (Tokyo Vice, Legion), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (The Magnificent Seven, Murder on the Orient Express), Truman Hanks, and Mike Birbiglia (Orange Is the New Black, Billions). In this adaptation of the Swedish novel and film by the name of “A Man Called Ove,” Otto is a man who has had it all. When a new neighbor moves in, Otto develops a companionship that may turn his frown upside down.
Complaining. It is about as human as breathing. Complaining is the foundation of many protagonists. Some of the most iconic film protagonists of all time started off their story by complaining. In “Star Wars,” Luke Skywalker complains about having to live on the farm for another year. In “Ratatouille,” Remy complains about the way rats treat food compared to mankind. In “Risky Business,” Joel Goodson complains about the landscape of high school as it comes to an end while he tries to pass his exams and get into a good university. We love to complain, and I have done my fair share of it over the years. And I assure a lot of people reading this have too. Now this story centers around that entirely. Otto is an aged man who has seen a lot over the years, maybe too much. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and he simultaneously thinks society as a whole is getting dumber. When I think of Tom Hanks, this is a more subversive role for him, much like his appearance the recent shiny, polished turd known as “Elvis.”
Much like “Elvis,” I was not a huge fan of “A Man Called Otto.” Not because I think it is a bad adaptation. I have not seen the original movie or read the novel. Therefore, I have nothing to compare it to. But if I have to be real, this movie was not for me.
As someone who has reviewed movies on the web since 2016, I have learned that sometimes I can be predisposed to liking certain things. I love “Star Wars,” so I often get excited for whatever the franchise has coming up. I am a huge fan of J.K. Simmons, therefore when he is in a new project, I am usually curious. Similarly, when I look back at my experience regarding “A Man Called Otto,” I may have been predisposed to thinking I would not like it. Not because Hanks is playing someone who is complaining, but because the main character himself is complaining. What do I mean? Honestly, I have had enough of it in real life. Look at me, complaining about complaining. Hey, everyone! Time for a new drinking game! Take a shot every time the Movie Reviewing Moron says “complaining!”
I am not saying that characters in a movie should not complain. But what I liked about Luke Skywalker is that when I watched him, complaining never felt like the definitive aspect of his character. Sure, he definitely whined, he definitely did not want to do certain things for particular reasons, but Luke Skywalker felt like a relatable character, at least to me. Part of it is because of his complaining, but it was executed in a way that was palatable. I cannot say the same for Otto. While there is noticeable character development in “A Man Called Otto,” the character of Otto starts the movie calling out everything in sight that he views as unfit or unlike his worldview, and it is hard for him to stop. There are few things that are as important in life as first impressions. If I go to a pizza shop and I end up making a wacko face on my first bite of their pie, that is not the best of signs. I might hesitate to come back. Tom Hanks, or perhaps director Marc Forster, is the pizza shop owner. And the character of Otto, unfortunately, is a lackluster pie.
Although speaking of predisposal, part of me wonders how much the supposed subversiveness of this role rubbed me the wrong way. Tom Hanks is, perhaps stereotypically, America’s dad. And seeing him in a light like this felt jarring. But if you ask me, I do not know if that is the case. Because in reality, Tom Hanks is a great actor. But he feels miscast here. Yes, name recognition helps, but he nevertheless sometimes fails to bind with this role. Plus, after seeing him in “Elvis,” where he potentially gave my least performance he has done as the weirdly accented Tom Parker, and now this, I am beginning to assume that this turn where he plays meaner or comparatively pessimistic roles is not working out. I recently watched “Spirited,” the brand new holiday movie, with my family last December. During said viewing, my mom said she does was not used to seeing Ryan Reynolds or Will Ferrell sing or do anything musical-related. As far as I’m concerned, Ferrell and Reynolds had range whereas Hanks is trying his best and he does not have everything down to a science. In some ways, his character is comes off as one-dimensional as a ragdoll. I love Tom Hanks, but this is not his best work.
This is not to say that “A Man Called Otto” is entirely bad. If anything, it is an interesting concept for a movie that is not done as well as I would have hoped. There are characters I liked in the film including Marisol, played by Mariana Treviño. Every scene she is in, she warms everything up, including my brain. She is perhaps the most adorable character in the entire film. If I could spend an entire weekend with this character, I might take that chance.
The film, which again, is based on previous works from Sweden, also has a nice touch to honor where it came from. There is a scene set in a cafe where Otto shows Marisol a certain usual he enjoys. The moment he explained what it was, I thought it was a nice little touch. As much as I dig on this film, I will recognize some small glimmers of charm it carries.
Although despite the small glimmers of charm, when I take everything that I saw leading up to this film’s final moments, I look back at the film negatively. Almost in as grumpy of a state as Otto himself. There are funny moments in the film, but I cannot say they had me laughing out loud. There are poignant moments in the film, but I never felt a ton of emotional weight. Even though there are certain complexities in regard to Otto’s character that make him interesting, I never felt intrigued enough to say that my time was not being wasted. Ultimately, this film has some likable supporting characters, like the recently mentioned Marisol, but the same cannot be said for the film’s main character.
Though I must add one final note. There has been a lot of talk lately about “nepo-babies” in Hollywood and the film industry. Personally, I have mixed feelings on it given how I can support family business, but it could also exclude equally, more talented, or even more aspiring individuals who hope to enter this industry. With that in mind, I must say this film’s use of Tom Hanks’s son, Truman Hanks, was not only appropriate, but made for some highlights. Truman Hanks plays a prominent role in the film as the younger version of Otto. He is seen in several scenes and he plays the part well. I have no idea to what degree Truman Hanks is hoping to take acting seriously much like his father, but he did a good job in this film as Otto’s younger interpretation.
In the end, “A Man Called Otto” is a shocking movie. Because if you told me that I would watch two movies in the span of a year where I am not fond of Tom Hanks’s character, in addition to his performance, I would have slapped you Will Smith style. But here we are. I love Tom Hanks as an actor, and I would continue to watch anything he is in. Heck, they just announced “Toy Story 5.” I would watch that. But as much as I respect Tom Hanks for trying to spice things up from his usual flair, I think his “nicer” performances work because he executed them so much better. Although art is subjective, so maybe this flair works for others. But it did not work for me. I am going to give “A Man Called Otto” a 5/10.
“A Man Called Otto” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new MCU installment, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I had the chance to see the film last weekend, and I will have the review for you to read sometime next week.
Also coming on March 5th, it’s the Jack Awards! Scene Before’s annual awards show is back with a new and hopefully improved name! Get ready for another unnecessarily long celebration of the past year in film with exclusive video content, also featured on my YouTube channel! The nominations for the show are already online, and if you would like to vote for Best Picture, click the link right here, it will take you to a poll and you can vote for one of the ten nominees! May the best picture win.
If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Man Called Otto?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a performance that you hate from an actor you love? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
