Comedy

See How They Run (2022): An Admirably Staged Whodunnit with a Lesser Known, But Solid Cast

Posted on by Jack Drees

“See How They Run” is directed by Tom George (Defending the Guilty, This Country) and stars Sam Rockwell (Moon, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird, Little Women), Adrien Brody (The Pianist, King Kong), Ruth Wilson (Jane Eyre, The Affair), Reece Shearsmith (Spaced, The World’s End), Harris Dickinson (Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, The King’s Man), and David Oyelowo (Selma, Gringo). This film is set in 1950s London, where Agatha Christie’s “The Mousetrap,” which has become a popular play in the West End, is set to become a film. Unfortunately, when one crucial member of the film’s eventual production has been murdered, plans halt and it is now up to Inspector Stoppard and Constable Stalker to find out more about what happened.

While I have not watched a good amount of them, I do love a good murder mystery. In fact, my favorite television episode of all time, specifically And Then There Were Fewer from “Family Guy,” is a murder mystery.

“Derek lifted up the Hollywood sign.” -Peter Griffin

Simply put, iconic.

In fact, one of my favorite movies of the past few years happens to be “Knives Out,” directed by Rian Johnson. All the actors play their part well, especially Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, and Ana de Armas, and it was one of the funniest movies of its year. In fact, while both movies have notable differences, I got “Knives Out” vibes from watching “See How They Run,” partially because both have some association with Agatha Christie works. For “Knives Out,” Rian Johnson once went on to reference several of Agatha Christie’s tales as inspiration for his film. As far as “See How They Run” goes, the movie literally uses an Agatha Christie work as a significant part of its story. “The Mousetrap,” which started off as a play, and as this movie reveals, is going to be turned into a film adaptation. As far as play to movie adaptations go, this definitely sounds better than “Cats.”

“See How They Run” is neither the biggest, nor most recognizable movie out right now. Heck, even “Avatar,” a thirteen year old film, beat it at the box office over the past few weekends. But to be fair, “See How They Run” did not release in 3D. Although unlike some of the alternatives out right now such as “Don’t Worry Darling,” “See How They Run” is definitely worth watching.

When I say this movie is not the most recognizable, I mean it. I live in the United States, and there are few big stars in this movie I can pinpoint like Sam Rockwell, Saoirse Ronan, David Oyelowo, and Adrien Brody. And that’s if you can actually call some of these people “stars.” That said, much like the recently mentioned “Knives Out,” every actor in this movie fits their part and feels like they belong in their environment. I have no problem with the casting whatsoever. The same goes with the characters. Everyone brought their A-game and while it may not have as star-studded of an ensemble as say the recent Kenneth Branagh-directed “Death on the Nile,” I would argue that the performances in “See How They Run” are just as, if not more compelling when combined together.

My favorite performances in the film come from the two most prominent characters, Inspector Stoppard and Constable Stalker, played by Sam Rockwell and Saoirse Ronan respectively. Rockwell transforms into this experienced, determined detective who has some noticeable quirks. I cannot imagine anyone else playing his character. The same assessment would have to be given to Saoirse Ronan, who is not only great in the movie, but based on her resume in recent years, this is a different performance than I am used to seeing from her.

Obviously, Sam Rockwell has been acting for years, therefore he has had the opportunity here and there to diversify his performances. From the little that I have seen from Saoirse Ronan, specifically through her work with Greta Gerwig on “Lady Bird” and “Little Women,” she has a knack for playing outspoken characters, and the character of Constable Stalker feels comparatively quiet. She is never shy, not necessarily nervous, but compared to her work as say Jo March in “Little Women,” Ronan plays a character who, based on what the story provides, is not the elephant in the room. Granted, Constable Stalker is not the main character of the film, therefore that also comes into play. Although she had some of my favorite moments in the movie. She had this recurring gag where she would often jump to conclusions that got an occasional laugh out of me.

My other hint of enormous praise of the film is the look of everything in it. Everything from the locations to the cinematography by Jamie Ramsay to the costumes by previous Jackoffs winner Odile Dicks-Mireaux (Last Night in Soho, Chernobyl). I felt like I was in the 1950s the entire time. I wanted to leave my world and enter this one. Kind of like last year’s “Last Night in Soho,” this movie sets up a spookily enchanting environment that is as beautiful as it is rugged. Being set in London is a wonderful coincidence if there ever was one.

This film packs a lot in its fairly short runtime. Unfortunately, I feel like I am not going to remember many of the supporting characters within the next month. I will likely remember Inspector Stoppard and Constable Stalker for their fabulous chemistry, but there are a good number of people that we meet by the film’s climax that I think I will disregard in comparison when talking about the movie to other people.

“See How They Run” may not be as smart or fun as say “Knives Out,” but it is worth a watch. The best way I can describe “See How They Run” to someone who hasn’t watched it is by referring to it as a Wes Anderson-style film if had some of the tones of “Knives Out.” I think both of those aspects could provide for a promising time. But this is no “Knives Out,” and if you want me to go by Wes Anderson terms, this is no “Rushmore.” Although if you are looking for something fun, something that could be an escape from reality, this is a quick, easy option. And I can honestly see myself watching it a second time if it ever comes around.

In the end, “See How They Run” is not my favorite movie of year, it is not the best murder mystery, but it is a quirky, delightful time. I do mean it when I say quirky. The movie even takes time to make fun of particular storytelling methods. A specific instance of this in particular had me dying. One character noted how cliché or predictable some murder mysteries are to some people, which I thought added for a nice touch for a story like this. I like the two main characters, they were played wonderfully by Sam Rockwell and Saoirse Ronan. The overall aesthetic of the film is pleasing. My flaws with “See How They Run” do not detract from the delight this film is. I think you should see it if given the chance. I am going to give “See How They Run” a 7/10.

“See How They Run” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this, you might want to stay tuned for another review I have coming up. Specifically, for the new movie “Amsterdam.” I had a chance to see it, perhaps unfortunately. Therefore, I will be talking about it soon! Also, stay tuned for tomorrow, because I will be unveiling my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s classic film, “E.T. the Extra-terrestrial.” I am reviewing the film as part of an ongoing Steven Spielberg Month and in honor of Steven Spielberg’s new movie, “The Fabelmans,” which is set to release November 11th. 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 watch “See How They Run?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite murder mystery? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Clerks III (2022): The Most Personal Clerks Installment Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Clerks III” is directed by Kevin Smith (Mallrats, Dogma) who also appears in the movie once again as Silent Bob. Joining Smith on his latest “Clerks” outing are stars including Brian O’Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Trevor Fehrman, Austin Zajur, Jason Mewes, and Rosario Dawson. When Quick Stop employee Randall survives a heart attack, he decides he wants to do something with his life and make a movie. What’s the movie? Well, think of it as another version of “Clerks.” With the help of colleagues along with Jay and Silent Bob, they all come together to make a movie based on Randall’s life and experiences.

Hollywood has a tendency to celebrate itself from one movie to the next. This has been done through Damien Chazelle’s “La La Land,” Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” and the trend does not seem to be stopping anytime soon as we’re getting more movies of this sort like “Babylon.” That movie is, coincidentally, also directed by Damien Chazelle. Some of these movies have proven to be industry and award season darlings, which is why it is interesting to see that Kevin Smith is almost going for another approach with this. Kevin Smith has been part of “the industry” for years. As of a few years ago, he officially has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. But compared to other individuals, he doesn’t feel like a part of the industry. He often wears a part of New Jersey on his sleeve, his ego is not over the top, and compared to say the recently mentioned Tarantino, his track record with critics is not the best.

In fact, when I did my list of the worst movies of the 2010s, “Copout,” which released early on in the decade, ended up making the list.

But it does not change the way I feel about Kevin Smith as a personality. I met him at a comic con, and I can genuinely say he is the nicest guy I have talked to in this industry. Smith is an avid pop culture geek, extremely humble, and even though critics say he cannot make a movie, he has shown to be appreciative of the art. When it comes to the first two “Clerks” movies, I enjoyed both of them. Both are relatable and funny. I still think about the “Lord of the Rings” storyline joke in the second movie on a regular basis. As an aspiring filmmaker, I look up to to people like Christopher Nolan for his auteur-like traits. But in the back of my mind, I want to maintain the same sense of humility and spirit that Kevin Smith has possessed all these years. I did not know what to expect going into “Clerks III,” but I paid $20 for a Fathom Events ticket because I wanted to support the movie.

Having seen this film, it is probably my favorite “Clerks” installment, partially because of its shift from the other two.

While this film serves a proper sequel to both “Clerks” and “Clerks II,” “Clerks III” shows how much the franchise has evolved with each outing. From the first to the second movie we go from shooting in black and white to shooting in color. What’s the big shift in the third movie? Things get comparatively serious.

Kevin Smith based “Clerks” on his time in New Jersey and working behind counters. That stays true in “Clerks III,” but Kevin Smith has grown up since making his first feature back in the 1990s, therefore it feels natural that the franchise grows up too. This story would have never happened if in addition to the two “Clerks” movies, Kevin Smith never had a serious heart attack in 2017. The attack nearly killed him, but he has since made adjustments to his life, and now he is using his life experience to make “Clerks III” happen. This is a surprisingly sentimental and personal story that tugs at the heartstrings as much as it busts the gut. When it comes to emotional, mature storytelling, I do not often put that thought alongside Kevin Smith. Sure, the movie still has its series of silly shenanigans like a goofy line out of Jay or an occasional joke about drugs or private parts. Although in between that, it is ultimately a story about friendship. It is about people who stick by each other even in the toughest of times.

“Clerks III” feels like a love letter to filmmaking in the same way that “The Disaster Artist” was. Because that movie chronicled a film that would have been doomed to fail if it were not for its insane cult following. While “The Disaster Artist” based its story on the making of a movie that actually happened, “Clerks III” pays tribute to what the franchise has already provided while offering an unfamiliar, but most certainly welcome, sentimentality.

“Clerks III” feels like this year’s “Bill & Ted Face the Music.” It is a sequel to two movies that despite their charm, are not exactly Oscar-worthy, but come loaded with entertainment value. Both of the franchise’s third installments keep that same entertainment value, but also come off as a slightly, and I do mean slightly, more mature variant of what came before.

If you are a fan of Kevin Smith’s work over the years, there are particular scenes that could resonate with you. My favorite part of the film is when Randall’s movie is in pre-production and they are trying to find the right people for the right roles. This brings out a great number of Kevin Smith’s colleagues, friends, and a few other celebrities who I am quite surprised managed to take time to be in a movie like this. I will not say any names, as I did not know any of these going in, but the audition montage alone was worth the $20 I paid to see this movie. If you are looking for cameos, Smith’s got em. And they are all here!

Although there is one big name in this movie that I would like to reveal, and that is Amy Sedaris (At Home with Amy Sedaris, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt). Amy Sedaris not only plays a cardiothorasic surgeon, she kills the part in every way. Every line out of Amy Sedaris is delivered with a sprinkle of flair and I cannot see anyone else playing this part except for her. Also, there is a particular exchange between her and Randall that caught my attention. For those of you who remember “The Martian,” there is a scene featuring Sean Bean of “Lord of the Rings” fame, and his character has to explain what Project Elrond is to a group of people. To those who do not know, Project Elrond is the secret meeting in “Lord of the Rings.” Attentive “Star Wars” fans, most notably those who are familiar with “The Mandalorian,” may be able to notice a reversal of this in “Clerks III.”

To spoil the ending of “Clerks III” would be like spoiling the ending to a lot of movies, it would ruin the grand effect of what’s to come. Although if I had to give my quick thoughts on the ending of “Clerks III,” I would say that it is one that I would not have predicted, but it is definitely earned. There is a particular moment between Randall and Dante that hit me. It feels weird to say because I am not that attached to these characters. From start to finish, I only saw both “Clerks” movies once. I liked both, but nevertheless. But these characters have a moment together that adds up and delivered the feels. There is more to the ending, and it nearly feels choppy, but it is a kind of choppiness that I was willing to appreciate.

If I had to give my biggest problem with the film, it weirdly enough has to do with one of my positives. The drama. There is a fundamental shift between the characters in the film in terms of how they view each other and their current situations. While I appreciate the fact that for the most part, this film goes for drama, and succeeds, this is the one blunder. This shift feels seismic to the point where I could not buy it. Maybe if it were written differently, it would have been executed better. Maybe less dialogue, maybe different words. But there is a hot second in the movie that has a moment of tension that almost feels forced.

Even so, “Clerks III” is a funny yet heartwarming conclusion to a trilogy that started nearly thirty years ago. There is a saying in that you should write what you know. And that is what Kevin Smith did. He took what may have been the worst situation of his entire life, and now he is telling what could be his most emotional story yet.

In the end, “Clerks III” is a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy that mostly blends comedy and drama to an admirable degree. Kevin Smith movies always provide a likable vibe, even if it is not up to the caliber of say a Spielberg flick. The “Clerks” movies look cheap, but have occasional moments that feel like a million bucks. With “Clerks III,” Smith arguably hit the jackpot. When it comes to pure fun, there are few other movies this year that were able to deliver what this movie did for me. “Clerks III” is not my favorite movie of the year, but when it comes to genuine good times, there is are few rivals in terms of 2022’s cinematic calendar. I am going to give “Clerks III” a 7/10.

“Clerks III” is playing in theatres for a limited time and is going on tour across the United States and Canada! For those who live in certain areas, Kevin Smith will be bringing the movie to a city near you like Los Angeles, Chicago, or Montreal. For tickets and more info on “Clerks III: The Convenience Tour,” visit clerks3.movie/roadshow.

Thanks for reading this review! Guess what guys? My next post is going to be very special because I will be reaching 600 posts on Scene Before! Per usual, I will be doing a long-winded update on my Blu-ray collection. That video will also be available on my YouTube channel, but I will be sharing said video here as the 600th post for those who read my blog. 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 “Clerks III?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see the other two “Clerks” films? Tell me your thoughts on those! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Luck (2022): Somewhat Charming, Although Not Enough to Be the Luckiest Charm

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Luck” is directed by Peggy Holmes, whose resume, which includes four other directorial credits, has mostly consisted of Disney content. This film stars Eva Noblezada (Yellow Rose, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), Simon Pegg (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, Run Fatboy Run), Jane Fonda (Grace and Frankie, Klute), Whoopi Goldberg (The View, The Lion King), Flula Borg (Pitch Perfect 2, The Suicide Squad), Lil Rel Howrey (Uncle Drew, Free Guy), Colin O’Donoghue (Once Upon a Time, The Right Stuff), and John Ratzenberger (Cheers, Toy Story). This film follows a girl named Sam who suffers from one unlucky incident after the next. After one particular case of bad luck, she finds herself in a universe where good and bad luck collide to determine the fates of everyone on earth.

Many protagonists have a case for being down on their luck for one reason or another. But this is a case where the protagonist suffers from one incident after another after another after another in just a short amount of time. It’s the whole down on one’s luck thing, but it’s wildly consistent here. Some might say that luck is not cinematic. But after watching Domino in “Deadpool 2,” I think that’s a falsehood. So I was looking forward to whether the movie “Luck” could be the latest charm (haha) from Hollywood. As for the movie itself, was it worth the watch?

Not exactly. The good news is, as far as the studio is concerned, specifically Skydance Animation, this is their first film. Founded by David Ellison and led by former Pixar vet John Lasseter, “Luck” is the first film in the studio’s slate, and they do have more coming like “Spellbound,” which has a stacked voice cast ranging from Rachel Zegler (West Side Story), Nicole Kidman (The Northman), and even John Lithgow (Interstellar). Maybe their second outing will be better. But for now, let’s focus on the mediocre first outing. But hey, they can only go up!

Again, I like the concept of the movie. I love how one person could be this unlucky all the time and a story can be made out of it. In fact, as far as the protagonist goes, being unlucky is not all about the little things. This movie establishes that the main character, Sam, grew up as a foster kid. At the end of the day, she was never able to find her real family. But at some point, she found herself on her own. She started a new job, she started school, she started living in her own apartment. Sam had a plan and she was sticking by it. So I do admire that the film is not just saying that the main character is unlucky every other second and just going with it. Bad luck is literally intertwined as a core foundation of Sam’s backstory, her growing up.

Sam is voiced by the amazingly talented Eva Noblezada. For the loyal followers who remember the 3rd Annual Jackoff Awards, which honored 2020’s cinematic calendar, I bestowed Noblezada with the win for Best Actress for her brilliant performance in the music-centric film “Yellow Rose.” It makes sense that she would be in a movie like this, as her character does sing and she not only has a history of singing originals in “Yellow Rose,” but she was also in the Broadway play “Hadestown,” so she has range of being on and off-screen. I was excited to see what she could do in a voiceover role. I thought Noblezada had a cute presence and fit the character in every way. I also sort of related to her character. I mean, who wouldn’t? I am pretty sure everyone has had that one day in their life. That one day where anything that could go wrong, actually does.

I also like some of the supporting characters in the film. Simon Pegg plays Bob, a black cat who happens to be Sam’s sidekick for most of the film. I thought he brought some personality to the table. Jane Fonda was a great choice to play Dragon, a character that could literally sniff out bad luck. I thought she was larger than life and lively to say the least. As for the real world, there is one character named Hazel that is presented of highest importance. Not only is she well written from a story perspective, notably through her bond with the protagonist, but I think her respective actress, Adelynn Spoon delivered a cute performance that garnered my attention from early on. Overall, the voicework in this film is top notch. Also, unlike the recent “DC League of Superpets,” despite this movie having some big names, I was never distracted. I never felt like I was listening to someone such as Whoopi Goldberg, who happens to portray the character of Captain, play herself.

While I will reiterate that I am not a massive fan of the film and do not intend to watch it again, I think one of the main highlights is a scene from the first five or so minutes where Sam is going through her morning routine. She’s making breakfast, she’s showering, doing everything she needs to get ready to start her day. But this plays into the whole bad luck trend that has been large part of her life. This lends to some of the funniest visual comedy I have seen recently. I think animation often lends itself to some great humor. And this year is no different when it comes to films in that genre like “Turning Red.” While “Luck” may not be as enjoyable as that film, it is a film that like “Turning Red,” can guarantee a laugh out of me for something I see on screen.

As for the music in the film, I think the musical score by John Debney (The Orville, Iron Man 2) is quite impressive and fits the scope of the film. In fact the scope is quite large given the eventual enormity of the protagonist. I also want to talk about the use of the Madonna song Lucky Star. While it may intertwine with the luck theme this movie has going for it, I think its use comes off as nonsensical, and I kind of cringed when it happened. But that is because of how the song is used from a story and script perspective. I am sure that if the song were simply used as an end credits piece, I would have appreciated it more, but it was used as an out of nowhere device to move the story forward. It is almost lazy. Eva Noblezada sang the piece and she did an okay job, but I just feel like its insertion was either through writer’s block or as a joke to cater to adults who knew the song or children that need visuals to lighten the moment. This movie does not have enough lyric-based songs to sell a soundtrack, so I cannot say that is what the writers were going for.

I also feel incredibly conflicted by the ending. Sure, there are things that happen in the end that add up and feel in place. There is even one moment in the end that made me genuinely happy. But I also feel like how we got to a certain point almost felt forced. It is almost kind of cringeworthy. I get why what happened actually happened, but how we got there almost feels nonsensical. Maybe it drives home the lesson of the film for families and children, but even so, it just feels odd watching it. I almost did not buy what I was seeing on screen. This might sound weird, but this is just from my experience. Despite just about everything making sense, the final moments of the film nevertheless became slightly convoluted. I was not angry, I was not disappointed, I was just a little bewildered and questioning whether the protagonist would actually do what she did. I do not know. Maybe if I watch the film a second time I would feel different. But again, the movie is not worthy enough of a second watch, so that is probably going to remain a mystery.

In the end, “Luck” is rather unlucky. The protagonist is perfectly established, some of the supporting characters are fun, and I never found myself outright angry at this film unlike say the recent “Paws of Fury.” Although if you have children and are looking for an animated movie to watch together, there are better options out there. In fact, this movie is on Apple TV+. If you want a great animated movie to watch on the service, I highly recommend checking out “Wolfwalkers.” It is a 2D animated film about a girl who can suddenly transform into a wolf and ends up befriending someone just like her. It is wonderful, it has emotional beats, it is quite imaginative to say the least. This is not to say that “Luck” is not imaginative. I will be frank, I like the concept of having a universe that controls good and bad luck on our planet. I just wish it were done better. There are some good things about “Luck,” but when the ending came into play, I just found myself nearly indifferent about what I just watched. Maybe you will not feel the same, but I have no plans to watch “Luck” again. And that stinks, because I want to see more from Eva Noblezada, but I hope she does something better than this. I am going to give “Luck” a 5/10.

Also, before I move on, I want to address something I was curious about in regard to the movie ever since I saw the trailer. This is a screenshot I took on YouTube. As a Bay Stater, I need to ask everyone who made “Luck” a simple question. Is this movie secretly set in Boston? Look at license plate on the city bus and tell me that is not a Massachusetts license plate! I know it does not say Massachusetts, but look at the thing!

“Luck” is now streaming on Apple TV+. While it did release in theaters in August, there are showtimes listed online and the film will be coming back to several markets starting Thursday, September 22nd. If you want to see the film in theaters, get your tickets now.

Thanks for reading this review! I want to remind everyone once again that this October, I will be doing a Steven Spielberg Month in honor of his brand new film, “The Fabelmans.” In preparation, I will be reviewing “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “E.T. The Extra Terrestrial,” “The Post,” and “West Side Story,” so stay tuned for that! 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 “Luck?” What did you think about it? Also, did you ever have a day where everything just went wrong no matter the case? Tell me about it! I would not mind hearing all about it! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bullet Train (2022): A Rambunctious, Wild Ride That Lives Up To Its Transportive Name

Posted on by Jack Drees

DISCLAIMER: Before this review had been published, reports suggest Angelina Jolie had been revealed as a plantiff in recent assault allegations against her former partner, Brad Pitt. Scene Before (flicknerd.com) is a film review-centered website and will review “Bullet Train” in the same way it reviews any other movie regardless of who its crew happens to be and what their past actions are. Scene Before and its owner, Jack Drees, does not condone actions of assault.

“Bullet Train” is directed by David Leitch (Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2) and stars Brad Pitt (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, World War Z), Joey King (Ramona and Beezus, The Kissing Booth), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron), Brian Tyree Henry (Atlanta, Eternals), Andrew Koji (Warrior, Snake Eyes), Hiroyuki Sanada (The Last Samurai, Mortal Kombat), Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road, Nocturnal Animals), Bad Bunny, and Sandra Bullock (Gravity, The Lost City). This film centers around a former assassin, known by the name Ladybug, who is tasked with acquiring a briefcase on a bullet train, all the while encountering other deadly assassins.

Brad Pitt has been on fire in recent years with the success of Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.” Not only did he receive critical acclaim for the role, but he went on to win the Golden Globe, the BAFTA, the SAG, and the Oscar for his work. After adding all of these awards to his Tinder profile and wiping off his sweat from the forgettable “Ad Astra,” Brad Pitt is back to work releasing another cornerstone of the summer. Albeit this one definitely fits the definition of “summer movie” compared to his outing with Tarantino.

Not only is Pitt the big star this time around in this movie, because joining him you have cast members including Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry, both of whom are likely the best part of the entire story. Their chemistry is undeniable. Some of the major awards ceremonies like the Oscars do not rank on-screen couples or duos, but one awards show that does is the Razzies. If the Razzies decided to give a Worst On-Screen Couple nomination to Tangerine and Lemon, then I think they are high. Their awards body would need to seek a medical professional.

But behind the camera, you have an action director who has been making the rounds in recent years in David Leitch. He is a legend in regards to stuntwork, which he has been credited for in films like “The Matrix Reloaded,” “The Matrix Revolutions,” “300,” “TRON: Legacy,” and even though I do not look back at “Jupiter Ascending” as the best sci-fi film ever, its stunts were never the problem. As a director, his work on “Atomic Blonde,” “Deadpool 2,” and “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw” are thrilling to say the least. Therefore, it is nice to see him have another go at an action flick. Overall, I had a ball with Leitch’s latest attempt at delivering some fast-paced glory.

The biggest positive I can give to “Bullet Train” is that the action, per usual, is ridiculously entertaining. While somewhat similar, this outing seems to have a different flair compared to say “Deadpool 2” in terms of how the action is delivered. Let’s imagine… You sat me down to watch this film, and I went in blind. If you told me that this film were directed by Guy Ritchie, I would believe you. It kind of had that same pace that films like “Snatch” and “The Gentlemen” delivered. If anything, “Bullet Train” comes off as what would happen if Guy Ritchie were given some of the tools to direct a “John Wick” movie. Now, “John Wick” is obviously in a different universe, but the action in this movie felt somewhat reminiscent of something I’d see in a more modern, stylized action film such as John Wick. There is a great sequence between Ladybug and Wolf (Bad Bunny) where the latter goes all Jason Voorhees on him and the former’s main defense is a briefcase. It’s ridiculous, but as the review’s title suggests, this ridiculousness lives up to the name. The movie is over two hours and not nearly a minute of the movie feels wasted.

This film is based on a book which I have never read. Therefore, I cannot tell you the differences between the two stories. But what I can tell you is that at times, “Bullet Train,” the movie, feels like a graphic novel or a comic book. There are several shots and sequences that leap off the screen and made me feel like I was in the moment, perhaps in a hyperactive way.

Going back to Tangerine and Lemon, one of my favorite moments in the movie is where we get into this flashback sequence where we reveal how many people they killed. That is the spice this movie needed to individualize itself. It kind of had a “Deadpool” flair, which should not be surprising considering the director’s previous work. And again, it also kind of had the pace of a Guy Ritchie movie. I would love to see more stories told in this style, from this universe. It does not even have to be on the same characters. But if we could get a similarly set story from David Leitch’s mind perhaps, I would want to check it out.

But at the same time, if you ask me, I would rather go back and watch one of David Leitch’s previously mentioned movies. This is not a complete diss on “Bullet Train” because I had a GREAT time with “Bullet Train,” I just think “Atomic Blonde,” “Deadpool 2,” and “Hobbs & Shaw” offer a smidge more of entertainment than “Bullet Train.” Just a smidge. The one thing I can say is that the competition for which David Leitch movie I randomly put on the TV on a Friday night just got a lot harder, because these are all entertaining flicks in their own way. “Atomic Blonde” feels grounded yet fun. “Deadpool 2” is silly yet gory. “Hobbs & Shaw” is absurd yet delightful. “Bullet Train,” if you ask me, is obnoxious yet hilarious. It has the right amount of ridiculous, but it does not go too over the top in an annoying way. Kind of like “Kingsman: The Secret Service.” It is a movie that knows what it is from starts to finish. It starts as a nonsensical spy movie, and ends as an even more nonsensical, but also satisfying spy movie.

Also, I must say, that as someone who grew up with “Thomas the Tank Engine,” this movie is a wonderful tribute to my childhood. You would have to see the movie to understand.

If I had any other comments in regard to “Bullet Train,” the main one that comes to mind, sticking with the ridiculousness, is that the ending is probably some of the most stupid fun I have ever had during any of my recent moviegoing experiences. “Bullet Train” is willing to embrace its ridiculous nature and the ending is just the cherry on top. If you like big, loud action movies, this could be for you. I’d rather watch “John Wick,” but when it comes to being a supposed “John Wick” wannabe, this is a fun ride that you might want to buckle up for.

In the end, “Bullet Train” is probably some of the most fun I have had at the movies this summer. All the actors do their best with the material. And while Brad Pitt does a good job in the movie as Ladybug, the whole story eventually becomes the Tangerine and Lemon show. I would love to see another story with these two as the leads. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Brian Tyree Henry play their parts with excellence. This is a slow month for movies, but if you are looking for something to watch, I would buy a ticket to ride what I would call a fast-paced thrill. I am going to give “Bullet Train” a 7/10.

“Bullet Train” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the all new A24 film “Bodies Bodies Bodies!” Stay tuned! Also, be on the lookout for my thoughts on “Beast!” 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 “Bullet Train?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of David Leitch’s films? For me, I gotta say of the ones he’s directed, “Deadpool 2” stands out the most. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Vengeance (2022): B.J. Novak Directs and Stars in A Texas-Sized Slice of Mediocrity

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Vengeance” is directed by and stars B.J. Novak (The Office, Saving Mr. Banks). Joining him is a cast consisting of Boyd Holbrook (Logan, The Predator), Dove Cameron (Descendants, Liv and Maddie), Issa Rae (Little, The Lovebirds), and Ashton Kutcher (That 70s Show, Two and Half Men). The film is about a writer who travels to rural Texas and attempts to figure out the happenings behind the murder of a girl he previously hooked up with.

I live in Massachusetts, and as someone who lives in Massachusetts, I often get excited to hear that particular people from my state like Elizabeth Banks or Ben Affleck get involved in a project or do a project of their own. I feel a sense of pride as a “wicked smaht” Bay Stater who occasionally stops by a Dunkin’. The U.S. version of “The Office,” despite being a sitcom I could never get into, has a few Bay Staters in the main cast including Steve Carell, John Krasinski, and the one we are going to focus on for this review, B.J. Novak.

Unfortunately for Novak, of the three stars of “The Office” I previously mentioned, he is the one I know the least about. I am more likely to acknowledge Carell or Krasinski. Steve Carell has terrific range from doing voiceovers in projects like the “Despicable Me” franchise, slapstick comedy through movies like “Anchorman,” and even drama flicks such as “Beautiful Boy.” John Krasinski is obviously known for his acting career, but I have grown fond of him for his directorial efforts in “A Quiet Place” and its sequel. But, this year, Novak is the new Krasinski. Not only is he directing a movie, he is starring in that same movie.

Although Krasinski has the upper hand if you ask me, because the concept of his movie felt more marketable. It felt more attractive. Novak’s new film, “Vengeance,” like any movie, could be good. But the trailer, if I had anything positive to say, barely sold me. Then I saw the movie… What did I think?

In theory, I like the messages this movie tries to convey. It dives into a number of a conversation-starting topics and ideas. Do we stereotype people too much or do stereotypes continue to have a place in our society? Is humanity, from a general perspective, too full of itself? Are we too attached to our electronics and is it heavily affecting what we could be experiencing in the real world? I like these concepts and questions. But it pains me to say that these are all presented in a script that could have been better.

Speaking of which, not only did Novak direct and star in the film, he wrote it too. This was undoubtedly a personal project, which only makes me feel worse that I have to describe why it did not work for me.

You want to know what sucks? Vacuums. You want to know what blows? Protagonists who you do not particularly like from the first scene. I wanted to relate to the character of Ben Manalowitz (right), and while I was able to find charm from the character here and there, I do not think the character was written in a way that sat well with me. The movie sells this character as a writer who has very much adapted to the northern city life. But in addition to that, he often came off as moody, or unlikable on the outside. I do not know what it is, but I feel like every scene he was in, he did not want to be doing what he was doing. I like the concept of his character, and he does his best to enforce the conceptual messages which I did enjoy, but the execution could have been better.

As I watched this movie, I got the sense that it was trying to present itself, maybe to an audience like mine, as a cultural shock. You know how you enter a country you’ve read a ton about but you have never been to? This is what I felt as a Bay Stater watching this movie about rural Texas. It is a movie that maybe is supposed to induce feelings of discomfort or unfamiliarity, and I think it did its job. But at the same time, I felt like some of the stuff that happens in Texas, at least in this movie, were a bit over the top. I was looking at the New York or more urban scenes and felt a contrast between that and the rural scenes. The rural scenes, or their centered characters, felt more exaggerated, more like cartoons at times. According to Wikipedia, B.J. Novak traveled to Texas to do research on the area and hoped that would translate into the movie’s concept or story. I do not know how over the top rural Texas is as I have never been, but I need to know how Novak came up with these specific Texan characters.

If I had to declare my favorite part of “Vengeance,” it would be one clip where Ben interviews the family and asks them some questions. In one scene, he asks what makes the family’s area so great. It only takes a second for the young boy, known by the nickname “El Stupido,” to shout “WHATABURGER!” Other than spending an hour or two at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to catch a connecting flight, I have never been to Texas. But even as someone from the north, the moment I heard the word “Whataburger,” I knew that this would be a somewhat accurate description of certain parts of Texas. We do not get Whataburger in Massachusetts, but it is everywhere in Texas. I know people who have been, and they say it is quite good. And besides, I go back to what I say in the beginning of the post and that random Dunkin’ comment. Like Whataburger, I can say that Dunkin’ is sort of a cornerstone to the lives of New Englanders. Obviously, Dunkin’ can be seen on the west coast. But there is a reason why Whataburger has such an association with Texas, and New England sports stars like David Ortiz and Rob Gronkowski have done commercialized material together for Dunkin’. So, good job on the inside humor.

Before we close off this review, I have to say the flaw that stuck with me the most is the way the film ended. I do not want to give any spoilers as this movie is only a few weeks old, but I will remind everyone reading this that the film is called “Vengeance” for a reason. Part of that reason is shown in the film’s climax. This allows us to see our protagonist do something, I will not say what, that felt completely out of character for them. Some may argue that this is “character development,” but as someone who saw the film, I would say that this was tacked on. Yes, in screenwriting, and therefore, in movies, there are “rules.” They do not always have to be followed, art and filmmaking are subjective after all, but nevertheless. One of the cliches of a protagonist is that they have to change throughout the film. And we see that here. Doesn’t mean the change is good. Once again, the concept is there, but the execution is not.

In the end, “Vengeance” could have been better. This is not the worst movie of the year, but if you are looking for something to watch at this point, there are better options out there. Unfortunately this August is a slow month for movies, especially more mainstream titles. But I would nevertheless recommend you even go see “Top Gun: Maverick” a third time at this point. I went into “Vengeance” not knowing what to expect and I left feeling unsatisfied. I wish B.J. Novak the best in his future works,. If he decides to direct more movies, I hope they are better than this forgettable outing. I am going to give “Vengeance” a 5/10.

“Vengeance” is now playing in theaters and is also available to watch on VOD platforms.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new Brad Pitt-starring action flick “Bullet Train.” I will not say much about it other than the fact that it literally lives up to its name. If you want to know my thoughts, stay tuned for the review. Also coming up, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Bodies Bodies Bodies” and “Beast.” 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 “Vengeance?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite project involving B.J. Novak? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

DC League of Super-Pets (2022): This Movie’s Biggest Kryptonite? Predictability and Familiar Faces.

Posted on by Jack Drees

“DC League of Super-Pets” is directed by Jared Stern and Sam Levine, and stars Dwayne Johnson (Doom, Skyscraper), Kevin Hart (Ride Along, Night School), Kate McKinnon (Yesterday, Saturday Night Live), John Krasinski (A Quiet Place, The Office), Vanessa Bayer (Saturday Night Live, Office Christmas Party), Natasha Lyonne (Orange is the New Black, Big Mouth), Diego Luna (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Narcos: Mexico), Marc Maron (Maron, GLOW), Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, Sonic the Hedgehog), and Thomas Middleditch (Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Silicon Valley). This film follows Krypto the Super-Dog, as he must figure out how to rescue his owner, Superman.

I love comic book movies. And I know I am not alone. If the box office for most of the films within this classification have shown anything, it is that films of this type are hotter than they have ever been. Marvel Studios is on fire right now with the release of “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” in addition to the massively successful “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” both of which ended up in my top 10 best of last year. DC is also doing well for themselves. I enjoyed “The Batman” despite some pacing issues I had with the film, and I thought last year’s “The Suicide Squad” might just be the best movie to ever have the DC logo attached. And in the midst of all of these movies that I either looked forward to or saw and really enjoyed, I never thought “DC League of Super-Pets” would live up to the quality standards that we have seen in other comic book-based works. If anything, I thought it would probably be on the same level as “Morbius,” only slightly more comedic and family-friendly.

I will be real. I cannot remember the last time I asked for a movie about Superman’s dog, but here we are. Why did I see it? Because I have reviews to get done and AMC A-List is a dynamite investment. I love not paying for movies that I feel the need to see to stay in the loop. Although at the same time, if you have names as big as Kevin Hart or Keanu Reeves, that should bring something promising to the table. And this brings me to my first positive, which I will dive more into later, Keanu Reeves was the highlight of the film.

What did I think of “DC League of “Super-Pets?” It’s predictable, mediocre, and I do not think the comedy landed that much. I have heard some differing opinions, but if you ask me, even some of the more clever jokes in this movie did not garner much of a reaction out of me. Some of the comedy attempts either felt tired, forced, or obvious. There is a “Paw Patrol”-related joke that probably would have been funnier if I did not make a “Paw Patrol” comparison before the film came out. Speaking of “Paw Patrol,” one thing about that show is that it is specifically made for kids. That’s the vibes I got from “DC League of Super-Pets’s” marketing campaign. All kiddy, no maturity. Turns out there is some adult humor in this film, but even that did not land. I can only hear the censor bar so many times before the gag becomes tiresome. This is honestly unfortunate considering the film is written by Jared Stern and John Whittington, who previously wrote another animated DC flick, “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Regardless of its comic-based origins and spinoff placement, it is one of the funniest animation scripts done in recent years. That movie had five writers! I hope for the sake of Stern and Whittington that they came up with at least one of the clever jokes that script contained, because “DC League of Super-Pets” feels like a far cry to the 2017 “LEGO Batman” spinoff.

The story of “DC League of Super-Pets” does not reinvent the wheel. I never asked for this movie to begin with, and therefore I never asked it to reinvent the wheel, therefore I did not know what to expect. But the movie itself sort of reminded me of a longer episode of a Saturday morning cartoon, but not necessarily a great one. I also think the script of “DC League of Super-Pets” is probably going to land better with those who are dog or cat people. People who have pets and consider them part of their family. I live in a space where there are pets, but they are not necessarily my pets, so this script did not connect with me maybe in the way the writers hoped it would.

I want to talk about the biggest problem in this movie, and this is the problem that the movie has built up ever since its first teaser. Going back to the big names. Having big names like Dwayne Johnson in your movie always builds intrigue and promise. It’s like when a printer gets endorsed by Shaquille O’Neal, or Mark Cuban becomes a quasi-mascot of a new, innovative product, or when Howie Mandel fist bumps everything in your store for some reason. When this film’s first teaser released, the primary focus was on the stacked cast this movie managed to acquire from Dwayne Johnson to Kevin Hart to Kate McKinnon to John Krasinski and so on. I want to talk about those first two names. Dwayne Johnson is arguably the biggest movie star in the world, and Kevin Hart, in addition to being a relevant comedian, has worked with The Rock in the past on “Central Intelligence” and the “Jumanji” movies. This is their third property together, and I do not mind actors or crew joining forces more than once. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone have worked together numerous times in “Crazy Stupid Love,” “Gangster Squad,” and “La La Land.” Their chemistry is undeniable.

I have no idea if this is coincidental or not, but the Gosling/Stone pairing is a match every time. The difference between Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone compared to Johnson and Hart is the ability of the former pair to show range. Ryan Gosling can be the sexy boy toy, he can sing, he can be stoic. Emma Stone can be a quirky young woman, she can be an aspiring actress, she can be someone from a couple centuries ago. The two are “actors,” not stars. Johnson and Hart, despite having personality, are not the greatest thespians, and it shows in “DC League of Super-Pets.” When I look at Krypto, I see The Rock. When I look at Ace, I see Kevin Hart. In my imagination, they are just playing versions of themselves in animated dog form. This is why part of me is often worried when I think about the upcoming “Super Mario Bros.” movie because like “DC League of Super-Pets,” I am just worried that Chris Pratt is going to do another version of Emmet from “The LEGO Movie” or something. Chris Pratt, like The Rock, while he is definitely a better actor, is not the greatest of the performers working today. Pratt’s voice is recognizable, and that is part of why it felt weird hearing said voice in Pixar’s “Onward.” I am not saying live-action movie stars should not voice animated characters. Some have as much talent as those who primarily do voice-acting. But these roles show Johnson and Hart’s lack of range as actors. Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart always do the same schtick or some variation of it in their movies. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Not having a live-action environment hinders that and makes this film the weakest of their collaborations. And the fact that I am looking at these dogs’ faces and seeing nothing but Johnson and Hart makes their performances creepier than they should be.

I said I will get back to Keanu Reeves. A promise is a promise. Reeves is easily this film’s best part. Not just because of his voice, but the character he plays, that being Batman. Much like “The LEGO Batman Movie,” this interpretation of Batman or Bruce Wayne is on the more parodic side, and rightfully so. I said earlier that I was slightly concerned that Jared Stern and John Whittington possibly never came up with any solid jokes in “The LEGO Batman Movie.” Although after reminiscing on Batman in this film, part of me has second thoughts. I was not a huge fan of the film’s comedy, but the parts where I was almost rolling on the floor were the scenes where Batman shows up. His screen time in this film is minimal. Think of it as a funny Stan Lee cameo where he plays himself except it happens ten times. Despite this movie’s lighthearted tone, it also pokes fun at the darkness of the Caped Crusader. Everything from his lone wolf mentality to his lack of parents. It’s hilarious, and I might every once in a while look on YouTube for the scenes in this movie containing Batman just to get a laugh.

In the end, “DC League of Super-Pets” is, to my surprise, not the worst comic book movie of the year. Again, “Morbius” exists. You’re welcome, Warner Brothers! You are going to have to settle for the dishonorable mention. Some of the voice acting is hit or miss. When I watch an animated movie, part of me wants to forget that I am watching something that has The Rock in it. I think as far as voice performances go, Johnson’s performance in “Moana,” while not my favorite in history, is slightly better than the one he gives to Krypto. But I also do not know if I can blame it on his ability, because his voice is recognizable. When it comes to Kevin Hart playing a house pet, I’d rather listen to his performance as Snowball the terrier in “The Secret Life of Pets.” I often watch films for an escape. If I want an escape with The Rock and Kevin Hart, I would rather watch “Central Intelligence.” This is not a film that is going to stand the test of time. As far as DC goes, it is surprisingly better than “Wonder Woman 1984,” but unlike “DC League of Super-Pets,” I had higher expectations for that film. I am going to give “DC League of Super-Pets” a 5/10.

“DC League of Super-Pets” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the film “Vengeance,” directed by B.J. Novak. Also be on the lookout for my review for “Bullet Train,” the new action flick starring Brad Pitt as he and assassins crowd up a speeding train in Japan. 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 “DC League of Super-Pets?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with a stacked cast that disappointed you? For me, that big disappointment was 2017’s “The Circle,” starring Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, Patton Oswalt, John Boyega, among others. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (2021): Even the Most Hyper-Masculine Will Buy the Adorableness This Movie Shells

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” is directed by Dean Fleischer Camp, and this is his feature-length debut. This film stars Jenny Slate (Parks and Recreation, Bob’s Burgers), Rosa Salazar (Parenthood, Alita: Battle Angel), Thomas Mann (Kong: Skull Island, Halloween Kills), Isabella Rossellini (Blue Velvet, Crime of the Century), Dean Fleischer Camp, and Lesley Stahl (60 Minutes). The film is based on a short and book series of the same name. In this feature-length take on a preestablished character, the story centers around Marcel, who spends his days with his grandmother, Connie. Throughout the film Marcel is interviewed as he unveils everything about being an anthropomorphic shell in a big house.

I have seen the trailer for “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” during my couple ventures to see “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” After all, it only makes sense as both films are from A24. I know a bit about A24 as a distributor. They have marvelous originals like “Eighth Grade,” some wonderful adaptations like “Room,” and even when a film from them is bad, they still have my respect. Because I always get the sense that an A24 film is typically bad in a way that makes me think, “Maybe that was not for me.” This is especially true with a movie like “Midsommar.” I appreciated “Midsommar” from a visual standpoint, but felt genuinely annoyed whenever it attempted anything along the lines of horror.

“Marcel the Shell” is a complete drift from “Midsommar.” There were families at my screening for crying out loud. If I were given the option to pick out a movie without having seen it, kind of in the sense that I am doing a blind buy, and those were my options, I’d lean towards “Midsommar.” On the surface, it would seem like my kind of movie. I was sold on “Marcel the Shell” when seeing the trailer, but between Ari Aster’s name being attached in addition to the concept, “Midsommar” would have sold me harder.

Now that I have seen both movies, I can confirm that both tell oddball, offbeat stories. “Marcel the Shell” personally tells its story to a greater ability.

Between “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and “Marcel the Shell,” A24 is having a heck of a year, and I hope they continue to flourish.

“Marcel the Shell” has origins that go back some years ago. While Jenny Slate may also be known for her work on mainstream concepts like “Parks and Recreation,” she has dedicated her time, alongside other people, to creating “Marcel the Shell.” If her passion for the property has not been erased all these years later, Slate excels in revealing such a notion, because she gives it her all to deliver possibly the cutest voicework I have heard since maybe Young Dory in “Finding Dory.”

Although I cannot give Slate’s voice all the credit, because part of what makes “Marcel the Shell” so clever and palpable is how child-like the character is written. I do not mean immature. This movie has the maturity of a great Pixar story if you ask me. However, some of the lines in this film, not to mention the overall vibes, very much felt like watching a child grow up. I do not have kids, so this may not be the best analogy, but as someone who was a kid and as someone who knows parents, I imagine this is a good comparison.

One thing I remember from my childhood, either through growing up or seeing my sister grow up, is how often children mix up their words to say something that sounds similar to what they are trying to say. There is a great line in the film given by Marcel. He gives the famous quote, “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take,” which traces back to the famous hockey player Wayne Gretzky. But after acing this quote, Marcel is taking all the time in the world to come up with a ton of similar sounding names, but none of them are Wayne Gretzky.

The closest he comes to being right is Whale Jetski. …This is the most adorable movie ever created.

Not only is Whale Jetski a cute-sounding name, but it goes to show how hilarious the movie is. This film is presented in a mockumentary style, which was never my thing. While a lot of my friends tend to enjoy “The Office,” and as much as I think some of the people behind the show are talented, the show’s mockumentary format never sat well with me. That is not the case with “Marcel the Shell,” as the mockumentary format not only lends to some unique concepts, neat editing tricks, and kneeslap-worthy jokes, but some occasional great fourth wall breaks, if you can call them that, from the character of Dean. His main purpose is to videograph the goings on of Marcel, which fits into the mockumentary aspect of the film. After all, it is revealed that he is filming a documentary, which Marcel and his shell community happen to be in on.

“Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” proves that the creative floodgates have a wider opening than some might think. In a world where we are inundated with sequels, reboots, comic book movies, or flashy action adventures, we still have a desire for telling and seeing stories like this. “Marcel the Shell” has the simplicity of a show like “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” and the creativity of a movie like “Toy Story.” I have truly never seen anything like “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On.” It is not the first story with the character, but it feels new to me.

For a movie that truly is small, much like its titular character, it packs such a raw punch when delivering emotion at times. I already talked about the humor, but I can guarantee you that this movie will make New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick smile. Maybe he’ll shed a tear, who knows? I am not saying that everyone will walk out of this movie with a tear out of their eye, happy or sad. But I am saying that if you do not walk out of “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” with a smile, I would argue that you hate all things awesome. Things like swimming pools, or French fries, or redwood trees, or space. How the hell can one hate SPACE?!

There is not much I find wrong with “Marcel the Shell.” I do think I became more invested in the shell community as opposed to the humans they expose through flashbacks, which is not a terrible thing, because the movie knows what it is about. Other than that, I think “Marcel the Shell” is one of the best films of the year, and if you miss it, then you are skipping possibly one of the most adorable films in cinematic history. I mean it.

In the end, “Marcel the Shell” lacks the grand scale many movies tend to have nowadays, but that is also what makes it a unique and entertaining production. This is a movie about a shell who spends his days with his grandma and happens to bond over things like “60 Minutes.” Yes, THAT “60 Minutes.” The one on CBS every Sunday. It sounds weird. And in ways, it is. But that is also why you should give it a chance. This is great for adults, this is great for kids, therefore it is great for everybody. I guarantee that you will grin at least once by the time those end credits show up. If you don’t, then color me shocked. I am going to give “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” a 9/10.

“Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I want to apologize for not getting this out earlier. I have been somewhat busy recently and I am happy to announce that I am likely going to be taking on more movie-related writing outside of Scene Before. Those of you who have been here since the start would know that Scene Before, AKA Flicknerd.com, is independently operated by me, Jack Drees. But if all aligns properly, I will be writing for a particular outlet that some of you might know. I am not going to say which one as I am not officially onboard, but if I have more information, I will share it with you.

That said, if you like this review, be on the lookout for more coming soon! This week I will be sharing my thoughts on “Nope,” the new Jordan Peele film where a brother-sister duo confront a strange event around their horse ranch. Also, stay tuned for my thoughts on “DC League of Super Pets,” the new animated superhero film that focuses on Superman’s dog, Krypto, and a set of other superpowered animals. 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 “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could make a documentary on something, what it be about, and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank (2022): A Catastrophically Legendary Failure That Will Make You Hate Cats and Dogs

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” is directed by Rob Minkoff (Stuart Little, The Lion King), Mark Koetsier (Kung Fu Panda, Big Hero 6), and Chris Bailey (X2: X-Men United, Kim Possible) and stars Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The LEGO Batman Movie), Ricky Gervais (Night at the Museum, The Office), Mel Brooks (Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs), George Takei (Star Trek, Kubo and the Two Strings), Aasif Mandvi (The Daily Show, The Brink), Gabriel Iglesias (Magic Mike, Space Jam: A New Legacy), Djimon Hounsou (Guardians of the Galaxy, Shazam!), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers, Pulp Fiction). This film centers around Hank, a dog who aspires to become a samurai. Once given the first glimmer of this goal, Hank is taken under the wing of Jimbo, a once great samurai, as he aspires to fulfill his destiny.

I am going to start off this review by stating something that may piss off some of my readers. I have never seen “Blazing Saddles.” I just have not had the time. In fact, as I started doing this review and refreshed myself through the cast on Wikipedia, I found out that this film is a loose adaptation of Mel Brooks’s well-known western comedy. To add to the similiarities, Mel Brooks even has a role in this film as The Shogun. I cannot confirm how many similarities and differences there are between this film and “Blazing Saddles.” Sure, there are some obvious ones I could make without having seen both films.

“Paws of Fury” is animated while “Blazing Saddles” is live-action. That’s the obvious difference. “Paws of Fury” is more focused on samurai whereas “Blazing Saddles” takes a more wild west approach with its story. In a way, this is almost a reversal of what “The Magnificent Seven” did as a redo of “Seven Samurai.” Because there is a solid chance that “The Magnificent Seven” would not be what it is if it were not for Akira Kurosawa’s creation. There is also a consensus that “Blazing Saddles” would not be made today due to the current climate and there being a greater strive to be politically correct in comedy. Obviously, this movie is mostly meant for families and children.

But children, mostly.

God help us all.

Some make the claim that “Blazing Saddles” is a movie that can not, and maybe should not be made today. They’re right. That is, if you are going to make it into something like this. “Paws of Fury” is the worst animation of the year.

I should not be too surprised that this movie is lacking in any and all luster. Because in my animation reviews, I often talk about Pixar as the gold standard on how you make an animated movie. Literally, this year, they released “Turning Red,” which slaps. And they followed that up with “Lightyear,” which is inferior by Pixar standards, but better than many movies could ever hope to be. They are a tough act to follow, but one thing that often separates Pixar from the competition is the studio’s ability to tell mature stories that do not rely heavily on cheap comedy gags that appear as if they were written for infants.

This movie is from Nickelodeon Studios. I have some nostalgia for Nickelodeon as “SpongeBob SquarePants” was my goto cartoon when I was younger. As I look back on the series, the early seasons had great writing, gutbusting comedy that ages like a fine wine. However, as we get through seasons 4, 5, 6, and so on, all of that trickles down. Every other joke is disposable, some character motivations and feelings come off as over the top, and they sometimes rely on sight gags that go too far. Similarly, this movie is no stranger to toilet humor. You want to know how much this movie relies on toilet humor? The main villain’s motivation literally involves the use of a super-sized toilet. I wish I were making this up. I’ll remind you, there is literally an animated movie called “FLUSHED AWAY,” which literally involves the use of toilets to further the plot, that takes itself more seriously than this when it comes to humor and writing. I think that toilet humor can be funny in doses and depending on the execution. As an adult, it is a bit hard to take it seriously however. Part of it is because it feels like the cop out of comedy. Fart noises can get a laugh, but fart-related jokes are so easy to write. All it takes is one noise. There’s very little effort involved. This movie tries to get creative with fart jokes by the end, but it did not change the fact that the whole concept of the joke felt lazy and forced. As much flack as they get, I think puns have more thought put into them than fart jokes. You might as well say that fart jokes can sometimes be… A pain in the butt.

I’ll see myself out. I have two working eyes.

Overall, “Paws of Fury” is very much that typical hero’s journey structure we’ve seen many times before. The potential hero is an unlikely one, but for whatever reason, the hero will do whatever he can to achieve his goals. On the surface, “Paws of Fury” feels like “Kung Fu Panda” if it were more samurai-based as opposed to martial arts-based. Except that “Kung Fu Panda,” while I remember it having maybe one joke that felt kiddy, did not treat its audience like morons. I already talked about the fart jokes, but this movie also has meta humor infused at times, part of which includes the notion that the flick “is only 85 minutes long.” I noticed over the years that there is a tendency amongst some people, and I include myself in this on occasion, to watch a film on the shorter side. It’s a time-saver, it helps with the attention span, and if you have extra time on your hands, it means you can possibly bang out a couple movies in a single Friday night. Given the frequency in which it appears, I am assuming that meta humor was always the intention from the film’s writers. But when I heard the “85 minutes long” joke, it only made me assume that the writers wanted to rush the project to its end. Like, okay, here’s a throwaway line! Let’s get to that pristine runtime!

This film has a stacked cast ranging from Michael Cera to Samuel L. Jackson to Ricky Gervais to even Michelle Yeoh. This film is not short on big names, and it’s almost as if they prioritized these names to get butts in seats over the story. Don’t get me wrong, just about every cast member plays their part to the best of their ability. Samuel L. Jackson does his best not to get in trouble with the parents who will be dragged by their kids to see this movie. Michael Cera is convincing enough to play a lanky dog hero who kind of sounds like a dork. Ricky Gervais does his best channeling his inner annoyed Golden Globes host personality as Ika Chu, a feline who wants to rid of a nearby impoverished town. Overall, the cast does their best with the stiff and sometimes lazy writing. But it does not change the fact that they are in a movie whose characters are mostly given stiff and sometimes lazy writing. This movie is not offensive, but it is almost uninspired. It feels crazy to say because it has an awesome opening sequence that had joyful Saturday morning cartoon vibes. After that, it’s all downhill. It goes to show that even when you have the competent direction and animation, it is not enough to hide a terrible script.

The one positive I can give this film is that it somewhat reminded me of something I learned in school. It may as well be the film’s takeaway for its younger viewers. There are films out there that unveil unlikely heroes, and this one is no exception. It’s the whole expect the unexpected cliché, but there was a scene that reminded me of a picture where a bunch of animals are given an examination to “climb that tree.” Of course, the monkey is the only one in the group who seems enthused by this order. The penguin, the elephant, the fish, the seal, and the canine are noticeably more hesitant. This idea could be applied to the entire film because it is about a dog who is assigned to watch over a town of cats. The dog is also trained by a cat to become a samurai. This leads to a particular moment in the training montage where we literally see a climbing course. I won’t say much more, but this scene is executed in a way that reminded me of “climb that tree.” It goes to show that there is more than one way to teach or learn something. Although for everything else in the movie, it pales in comparison. The movie is not funny, some of the characters are occasionally annoying, and it is full of clichés that have been done better. Do not waste your time. I have seen other animated movies this year that are better than this one.

In the end, “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” is certainly legendary. More specifically, a legendary failure. Will kids like this movie? Yes, they probably will. And fortunately, as far as kids movies go, this is better for them than “Tom & Jerry” given how the protagonist is probably a more positive influence on younger minds. But I found myself more annoyed by this movie than anything else. I do not have kids, just to be clear, but would I let my kid watch this movie? Maybe. But I might have to leave the room because I can only take so much. But at the same time, I would worry, because given the movie’s script, it might only dumb down my kid should they keep watching it. Maybe they will grow up with the film, but not watch it past say their teen years. I did not know going in that this was an adaptation of “Blazing Saddles,” but I do know that I am going to give “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” a 3/10.

“Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another one coming soon! Be sure to stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Gray Man!” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Blazing Saddles?” What did you think about that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022): Taika Waititi’s Second, and Slightly Less Worthy, Thor Outing

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Thor: Love and Thunder” is directed by Taika Waititi, who also directed the franchise’s previous installment, “Thor: Ragnarok.” This film stars Chris Hemsworth (Men in Black: International, Rush), Christian Bale (Ford v Ferrari, Batman Begins), Tessa Thompson (Men in Black: International, Annihilation), Jaimie Alexander (Nurse Jackie, Blindspot), Taika Waititi, Russell Crowe (Gladiator, Cinderella Man), and Natalie Portman (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, V For Vendetta). This is the fourth installment to the “Thor” franchise, the 29th movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the first instance where a character in said universe gets a fourth standalone movie. In this… THORth installment, Thor reunites with Jane Foster, who is now worthy. The two join forces with Valkyrie and Korg to defeat Gorr the God Butcher, a white being whose aspiration is literally in his namesake, the widespread elimination of all gods.

MCU phase 4 is like having a demanding girlfriend. You love her, but you also want to get away from her. Although when you think you are about to leave, you just keep coming back because you cannot see yourself attached to something else. I am not saying I hate the MCU right now. I thoroughly enjoy the MCU, but as I’ve said in my reviews for “Black Widow” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” the whole universe, while still entertaining, is almost homework in disguise. When I was watching “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” I had fun, but I felt like I was being tested on how much I remembered “WandaVision.” You could almost make an argument that “Spider-Man: No Way Home” tests your memory on seven different “Spider-Man” movies at once across three different universes. To be fair though, I am not of this demographic, but I would imagine the general audience would not need to watch all of those other shows and movies in order to understand what comes after. However, their experience would only be enhanced if they did.

There is a notable audience that tends to enjoy “Thor: Ragnarok.” I consider myself a fan of the film after a couple watches. It is not up there with the original “Thor,” but anything is better than “Thor: The Dark World.” If you liked “Thor: Ragnarok,” there is a solid chance you might find joy in “Thor: Love and Thunder.” This should not come as a surprise, as Taika Waititi helmed both pictures.

Waititi may be most responsible for Thor’s current success. If we did not have “Ragnarok,” his arc in followup “Avengers” titles “Infinity War” and “Endgame” may have slightly less meaning. But the best thing about his storytelling abilities is his tendency to perfectly balance light and darkness. I saw “Thor: Love and Thunder” with my dad. When we walked out of the theater, he affirmed, grinningly, that the movie had “something for everyone.” He may be right. After all, this film has comedy, action, drama, and even horror. Without going into specifics, Christian Bale is, on occasion, utterly terrifying as Gorr the God Butcher. The MCU is often criticized for its lackluster antagonists, and phase 4 is no exception to the rule with Taskmaster from “Black Widow” being a prime example of how movies are only as good as their villains. Gorr the God Butcher is not quite Thanos, and if we are judging “Thor” villains, I even think I have a softer spot for Hela in “Ragnarok.” But when you take a character like Christian Bale’s Gorr the God Butcher and place him in a story where Zeus strips gods in public and threatens others by not allowing them to come to an orgy, it is an odd combination. But somehow they make it work.

Speaking of things that work, let’s talk about Chris Hemsworth as Thor. While it took awhile for me to warm up to Thor kind of being the butt of a joke sometimes, I have come to learn that Chris Hemsworth has tremendous comedic chops. Even when the script does him no favors like in “Ghostbusters” (2016), he still manages to give the performance his all. He will practically do anything to make the character of Thor come off as fun. It’s almost like what they are trying to do with Aquaman in the DCEU where he has a somewhat godly presence, but at the end of the day, you might want to flock to the bar with him. It is why I consider Party Thor to be one of the standout characters in the Disney+ series “What If…?”. At the same time though, this movie can be used as an example in regard to jokes going too far. And I do not mean offensive, I mean the joke tries too hard or it goes on longer than it should.

This movie has some weird, but also simultaneously hypnotizing comedy gags. Thor literally talks to his weapons. There’s even a love triangle between them. Not what I would have written but… Okay. Jane Foster spends a portion of the film trying to come up with an epic one-liner that was somewhat hit or miss. There are these goats in the film that feel less like an attempt at comedy and more so a homage to outdated Internet memes. Sure, when they were first introduced, I laughed. But as the movie went along, they became progressively less funny.

One of the biggest surprises in “Thor: Love and Thunder” prior to its release was the return of the recently mentioned Jane Foster. Natalie Portman is a great actress between her work in movies like “Black Swan” and “Annihilation.” Despite the shortcomings of the dialogue, she also did her best in the “Star Wars” prequels. Speaking of shortcomings, one of the flaws of the first two “Thor” films is that her character did not have a ton to do. I liked her better than Kat Dennings’s character, most specifically in “Thor: The Dark World,” but nevertheless. Mostly, she was almost just there to be the love interest, and that was the character’s biggest service to the story. This time, she is an equal to Thor, or Mighty Thor, as she calls herself. That is, if Thor really is the Thor he once was in say “Thor: Ragnarok” or “Avengers: Infinity War,” because he has evolved, slowly but surely, into one of the MCU’s goto gags in recent years. When he was not fighting in “Avengers: Endgame,” the movie focuses on him in a dad bod, playing “Fortnite,” and drinking heavily. That movie’s humor adds substance to its story, much like some of the jokes in “Thor: Love and Thunder.” It is weird to think how much this character has tonally evolved since 2011.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” has some good humor here and there, but I think of all the Marvel Studios films so far, this is the one I think feels the most kiddy out of them all. It is weird to say because the film has a butt shot of Chris Hemsworth and an ongoing orgy-related threat, but this was one of the first times I can remember watching an MCU film and having it feel this much like a Saturday morning cartoon. I am not saying I did not experience Saturday morning cartoon vibes in the MCU before. “Thor: Ragnarok,” the “Spider-Man” movies, and “Guardians of the Galaxy” are all great examples of this vibe. But in the case of those films, the Saturday morning cartoon vibe, minus say “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” was presented more effectively, perhaps more maturely.

While this fourth “Thor” movie flashes back to its predecessors and revisits multiple characters across various stories, I can say that a notable positive I can give to “Thor: Love and Thunder” is that it does not require any prerequisites. You can go into this movie not having seen a single “Thor,” “Avengers,” or MCU installment and have a good time. Yes, the Guardians of the Galaxy show up, but it is not like they are going to test you on the complexities of Groot’s language or something. This is a contained story from start to finish and while it may be referenced later in the MCU, it does not come off as a tale told by gatekeepers. Ultimately, “Thor: Love and Thunder” may be the most stupid fun movie the MCU has given us so far.

If have to be real though, despite this movie being stupid fun, it kind of comes with a caveat. Before “Thor: Ragnarok” came out, the “Thor” movies were comparatively serious. They had their jokey moments. The first film is a fish out of water story that lends itself to tons of humor, and it worked. The second movie had many comedy attempts, but I can only recall one or two that stuck the landing. With “Ragnarok” and now “Love and Thunder,” we have Taika Waititi’s zany touch. I was not particularly fond of the humor in “Ragnarok” when I first saw it, but after rewatching the film, I warmed up to it. Therefore, during this movie, I was looking forward to seeing what the attempts at humor could be. Compared to “Ragnarok,” they’re a bit flat. Once again, some work, but the ones that do not happen to stand out. The goats were funny the first time, but maybe not the fifth or sixth time.

When I think of “Ragnarok,” certain hysterical moments come to mind. “Get help” is one of the funniest gags in recent action movies. The chemistry between Thor and Banner, Hulked up or not, is worthy of my attention. Stan Lee’s cameo where he cuts Thor’s hair is not only crucial to the plot, but gutbusting. So, what does Taika have in mind for this movie? A rock n’ roll-infused opening action sequence where Thor, almost egomaniacally, saves the day. There’s literally a moment where he stops two vehicles from running into him by doing a split. The image is still in my mind. In the moment, I thought that split was hilarious. But it also makes me realize how dramatic of a shift these movies have taken over the years. The first two movies are mature, with the original almost successfully capturing Shakespearean drama vibes. “Thor: Ragnarok,” while still having maturity in it, contains many comedy gags that nearly conflict with some of the movie’s darker moments. The same can be said for “Love and Thunder,” but the comedy is a bigger star than before.

Note how I said bigger, not better. There’s a difference.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” reminds me of “The Fate of the Furious.” I say so because like “Love and Thunder,” I had fun with “The Fate of the Furious,” but there is a certain amount of absurdity in that film that feels more leveled up than say “Fast Five” which jumped the shark, but was comparatively believable. “Thor: Ragnarok” was a ridiculous fun time with great humor and some logic-defying, but still entertaining moments. As the saying in Hollywood goes, bigger is better. Or is it? Because if you liked “Thor: Ragnarok,” chances are that this movie has twice the silliness. While laughter is the best medicine, this movie shows that comedic overdoses may be possible.

Before we dive into the final verdict, I want to talk about the visual effects of “Thor: Love and Thunder.” I am not going to dive into the recent news regarding visual effects employees struggling to work for Marvel. That is another issue, perhaps for another time. But on the surface, most of the visual effects in this film matches the recently mentioned Saturday morning cartoon vibe. Everything is bright, colorful, vivid, and sometimes gargantuan. I do want to note though that there have been some concerns about Marvel’s visual effects as of late in movies like “Black Widow.” I think if you are in the general audience, you might not care. I will admit, it has been awhile since I have seen “Black Widow” to give a detailed comment. However, I remember some of the effects in that film are surprisingly inferior to say “Captain America: Civil War,” which came out five years before. “Thor: Love and Thunder,” for the most part, looks great. But as far as “Thor” movies go, it might be the worst looking one yet if you pinpoint select shots.

While I said I will not dive too deep into the struggles of working in visual effects, I think we are seeing a sign that the MCU is becoming too crowded and overstuffed with content. I am enjoying phase 4 of the MCU. I have yet to see a completely terrible film. One or two series were hit or miss, but others were good. “WandaVision” was a fantastic debut for the MCU on Disney+, and “Ms. Marvel” was also really charming. The MCU has so many shows and movies now that it also has so many deadlines to consider. This year we have already seen two shows that ran for six-episodes and a couple movies. That is a lot of work, and it is not over yet because “She-Hulk” quickly approaching to Disney+ and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is scheduled to hit theaters this fall. I had fun with “Thor: Love and Thunder,” but by the standards of the MCU, this is not as good as I would hope for. Although the MCU has its occasional off day with movies like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” or “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” I just hope this is a slight bump in the road. But the MCU also did not have this much content going on at once at those times. I know some would disagree, but I would happily sacrifice all the upcoming Disney+ shows if it meant we were going to get a few consistently great MCU movies. I am sure Marvel has a plan, but is it too big of a plan? I hope not. But my worry is that the further along we go down the MCU timeline, the more signs we will get that this whole conveyer belt will unveil itself. Let’s hope that this does not happen.

In the end, “Thor: Love and Thunder” was good, but it is also my least favorite film of MCU’s phase 4. While not the worst of the “Thor” films, “Love and Thunder” nevertheless fails on arguably the same mission in which “Ragnarok” succeeded. Sure, there were a couple laughs here and there, and as far as “summer blockbusters” go, you could do far worse. Just look at “Jurassic World: Dominion.” Although “Love and Thunder” has quite a few negatives that stand out significantly. Natalie Portman was badass enough that I might want to buy a Mighty Thor Hot Toy. But I just wish I could see more of her. I wish I could have seen more of Gorr the God Butcher. This is one of the shortest Marvel movies yet, which could be beneficial to your bladder, but that’s were the benefits stop. Overall, the film feels rushed. I heard they shot some extra footage that never made it into the film, and Taika Waititi does not want to make an alternate cut with said footage, but for all I know, that could give some much needed fleshing out to certain aspects of the story. I would never want to put pressure on a filmmaker into making something they do not want to make, but as a viewer, I would be intrigued to see some of what I originally couldn’t see in some fashion. Maybe as a Blu-ray bonus feature. I am going to give “Thor: Love and Thunder” a 6/10.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” is now playing in theaters including large formats like IMAX and Dolby Cinema. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my review for “Thor: Love and Thunder,” then be on the lookout because I have more reviews coming soon! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” and “The Gray Man.” 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 “Thor: Love and Thunder?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Thor” movies? I’m a purist, I would have to go with the 2011 “Thor” directed by Kenneth Branagh. Leave your opinions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Brian and Charles (2022): A Delightfully Inventive, Robotic Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Brian and Charles” is directed by Jim Archer (Down in London, The Young Offenders) and stars the film’s writers, David Earl and Chris Hayward, as the titular man and robot duo. This film centers around an inventor named Brian. He has a history of inventing, building, crafting, and assembling whatever he can find either in his sights or his mind. It has practically become his life. One day, Brian decides to build a robot. Once the robot is built, the two develop an unlikely bond, allowing Brian to have someone close in his mostly isolated life.

First off, I want to apologize for not posting in awhile. This is the longest I have gone in years without making a new post after a previous one. I usually do at least one post every seven days, but that has been broken. I cannot promise whether or not this could happen again, but just know I am still invested in Scene Before. It has been a busy couple weeks, and I cannot say my non-blog related productivity will come to an end this week. Either way, I am finally glad to be able to talk about this movie because I love you, my viewers, the ones who stick around. And also, spoiler, this is a good movie. I am happy to give it some promotion.

I happened to flock to “Brian and Charles” on a whim. I already saw a couple movies earlier in the week, and I probably would not have gone to “Brian and Charles” if it were not for my AMC A-List membership. I was going to see this film at a press screening, but my plans to see “Lightyear” conflicted with that, so I passed on it. Speaking of passing, time passed long enough for me to watch the trailer for “Brian and Charles” on a Saturday afternoon. Next thing I knew, forty minutes later, I was in the cinema. Unlike “Lightyear,” which I eagerly awaited for months, “Brian and Charles” sort of came out of nowhere for me, but the little marketing I saw in advance intrigued me. It felt like an intimate spin on our relationship with technology.

Having walked out of “Brian and Charles,” there is definitely an intimate relationship. Although it is not necessarily with technology despite what the movie visualizes. The best way I can describe “Brian and Charles” is that it is a fun, entertaining parody on particular relationships between a parent and their child. Now, Brian never developed or adopted a human child in this movie. Sorry if this minute, irrelevant detail is a spoiler, there is nothing I can do about it. In a way, Charles, the robot Brian builds and attaches himself to, is heavily personified. It is not so much a robot as it is some sort of equivalent to Brian’s son. It is weird to think about, but the weirdness of this film is also what makes it work, it makes it charming.

To enhance a point in this review I would like to harken back to one of the films I reviewed last year. An animated feature by the name of “Ron’s Gone Wrong.” That film does something in its script that becomes a notable character trait. If you have seen that movie, you’d know that the defective B-bot played by Zach Galifinakis speaks in complete sentences, but as some robots tend to do, he says his words in a particularly similar pattern from start to finish and certain words are repeated throughout the film in the exact same tone. As much as I like Zach Galifinakis, his portrayal of the B-Bot became annoying throughout the film. But that also may have to do with the writing, the directing, and the post production so Galifankis is not necessarily the one to blame. My point is, this is a tactic that is similarly realized with Charles the robot in “Brian and Charles.” Although in this case, unlike Galifinakis’s human-like voice being featured in a defective piece of technology, this movie allows us to hear the voice of Chris Hayward, who from scene one emits Stephen Hawking vibes. Not only does the voice sound robotic, the way it shifts from word to word is incredible. Every pronunciation feels singular and I imagine much like “Ron’s Gone Wrong,” a lot of intensive editing, whether it was on camera or in post, went into making this voice believable.

Despite this accurately robotic voice, the human-like components within Charles are clear. This movie ended up subverting my expectations a bit because if you watch the trailer, I thought of the relationship between Brian and Charles to be that of close friends. At times, it does feel like that, but again, it also feels like Brian is Charles’s dad, allowing for some scenes where Brian is pictured as the bigger man and Charles as the one who has to listen to his master.

Despite being the bigger man, Brian is not the only character with a major goal throughout the film. There is a saying that kids grow up fast. And as I grow up, I realize more and more that I want to go out into the world, see some things I have never seen before. I want to tread my own path, whether it is through a career, education, or in the case that this movie presents, travel. This movie has an entertaining plot thread where Charles finds out about Honolulu, Hawaii. For the record, this movie is set in rural Wales, meaning that a trip to Hawaii is not only expensive, but far. These are two factors that many people would consider before traveling. Not Charles. Without going into much detail, this is not only entertaining and hilarious, but it enhances the movie’s metaphor about growing up, evolving as a child or parent for that matter. No matter who you are you have to sometimes take risks. They could be for one’s own good, they could build character. It also shows how little of a concept children have of time and money. When I went to on vacation in the White Mountains or Orlando when I was younger, money was not the first thing that came to mind. My initial thoughts were in regard to the attractions or a game plan. The moment Charles saw Honolulu on the television, he had an endless desire to go. It reminded me of a toddler who sees a store they know or a toy they recognize and they will do anything to either go in the store or have their parents buy said toy.

This story is a special case amongst movies featuring robots. There are a lot of movies out there like “The Terminator” or “2001: A Space Odyssey” where they have the same clear lesson. Don’t trust technology, don’t trust A.I.. This movie does not have that lesson. And like a vast number of the movies I would put in the same category as those two, there really is not much action or futuristic elements involved. It was nice to see a movie with robots that felt more down to earth than others. Even “Interstellar,” or the recent animation “Lightyear” which have friendly A.I. characters, are galactic adventures. Those movies are not 100% down to earth. Aside from being a cute odd couple comedy, “Brian and Charles” excels by not always relying on all the cliches, even if the movie has predictable moments, which it does. Nevertheless, I do recommend the movie. It is different, but if you like different, you might like the film.

In the end, “Brian and Charles” is not my favorite movie of the year, but its unique charm is enough to make it one of 2022’s most delightful surprises. I am in my early twenties and for the past few years I have seen certain movies that reminded me of a certain time in my life, part of this movie did that in regard to my present. A good movie can entertain you, while a really good movie can enhance or remind you of who you are. This one did both of those things. Despite my recent recommendation, this is definitely not a movie for everyone, but it is a movie for me. Maybe it will be for you too. I am going to give “Brian and Charles” a 7/10.

“Brian and Charles” is now playing in theatres, that is if it is still in theatres, I cannot find any showtimes… That said, if it is not playing at a theatre near you, please check out the film when it hits streaming services and DVD shelves. It is worth a watch. It is quirky, fun, and an all round delight. Give it a go.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Black Phone” directed by Scott Derrickson. I just saw the movie a week and a half ago and I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it. I have some things to say. Also, this week is the release of “Thor: Love and Thunder!” I will be seeing the movie Thursday night, so I will be trying my best to get a review out as quick as I can. And per usual, like every other movie I review, including Marvel titles, I will do my best to avoid spoilers. 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 “Brian and Charles?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a place you have been dying to see in your travels? Internationally, I think London, certain parts of New Zealand, and Tokyo are close to the top of my list. List your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!