“Honey Don’t!” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Substance), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, My Old Ass), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, The Gray Man), and Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Super Mario Bros. Movie). This film is the latest installment what some may call Ethan Coen and Tricia Cooke’s “lesbian B-movie trilogy” and centers around private investigator Honey O’Donahue, who must look into multiple deaths supposedly tied to a church.
“Honey Don’t!” is Ethan Coen and Margaret Qualley’s latest collaboration following the above average “Drive-Away Dolls.” I ended up giving the film a positive score, but it was far from my favorite movie of 2024. I praised the film when it came out, but if I had to name a core weakness, it would have to be the plot. I liked a lot of what went down in the film, but some of the script is kind of forgettable.
Having seen “Honey Don’t!,” I think it has a lot more in common with “Drive-Away Dolls” than its star-director combo. Both films feature its lead playing a homosexual woman finding herself while connected to an ongoing case. The film heavily leans into its sensual vibes. The film is also on the shorter side with a runtime of 89 minutes. And unsurprisingly, it is tightly paced.
Though one thing that individualizes “Honey Don’t!” is that I honestly do not see myself revisiting the film anytime in the near future. I ended up buying “Drive-Away Dolls” on Blu-ray. At best, I see “Honey Don’t!” as background noise while flipping channels and trying to get some sleep at a hotel. Even as I write this down, I am second-guessing myself. This is the kind of movie that I could imagine playing great if the TV were on mute. It has big stars in it, the overall look of the film is not bad. The production design is sometimes picturesque and individualistic. I will even add that some of the costume choices are memorable. But if you are going to ask me what my favorite part of this movie was, I would draw a blank. This is a clear case of all spark but little personality. At times, the film does have a quirky vibe to it, but it does not really do much to make the overall product better. There is a blandness to the quirkiness, if that makes any sense. It feels weirdly flat.
I said this about “Smurfs” recently, and the people behind “Honey Don’t!” can rest easy, because their movie is nowhere near as awful, but this movie somewhat feels like it should go straight to streaming. If I had to guess, the main reason why this film did not end up on streaming is because of the same reason why “Smurfs” did not end up on streaming, and it is not exactly due to how much it cost or how pristine it looks. Some of the production value is not bad. I thought a lot of the film’s style was clever. But its substance was lacking. It kind of reminded me of The Russo brothers’ “The Gray Man,” because the film is nice to look at, but it stars a talented group of people who deserve a better story. Heck, if I needed an even more recent comparison, Wes Anderson’s “The Phoenician Scheme” seems to fit the bill. Ethan Coen is kind of in the same boat as Wes Anderson given their respected resumes and individual filmmaking quirks. But on top of that, both of these films also have star-studded casts. If these films were not directed by people whose names are as well known as they are, I would imagine that someone is going after several big names to compensate for a lackluster story.
In addition to Margaret Qualley, the film stars Aubrey Plaza, Charlie Day, and Chris Evans, the latter of whom was also in “The Gray Man,” so this is not his first dose of mediocrity in somewhat recent times. I would not say that any of these actors give bad performances. In fact, I buy the chemistry of Qualley and Plaza as a horned-up couple. I thought Charlie Day was charming in his supporting role, even if it is not his best work. I have nothing overtly negative to say about him, much like many of the movie’s other cast members. They play their parts well, even if they are not written to their highest potential.
That said, the real standout for me is Chris Evans, who plays the marvelously unhinged Reverend Drew Devlin. Kind of like his outing in “The Gray Man,” Evans is chaotic in all the right ways. He brings an energy to this film that kept me interested. It is almost cartoon-like compared to some others in the cast, but it works. In recent years, Evans has been proving his range by playing complicated or moronic characters that separate himself from the hero who can do no wrong such as Captain America or Buzz Lightyear, and this is the latest example on Evans’ resume. It is not his best performance, but he comes off as if he is having fun with the role.
While I have not rewatched Ethan Coen’s preceding film to this one, “Drive-Away Dolls,” since the theater, I much prefer it to “Honey Don’t!” simply because there is a clear zaniness to it. The film is funnier, I like the characters more, and much like this movie, it is fun to look at. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand feels like there is something missing. There is an emptiness to it. And empty is not an adjective I would want to use to describe any movie, much less one from a Coen brother and its talented cast. Once again, this is supposedly the second film of an unofficial trilogy. I hope this is the one dud of the bunch. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project, and I am a little worried that the next movie could be as flat as this one. I hope that is not the case.
In the end, if I had genuine words to describe “Honey Don’t!”, I would be blanking. This is not the worst film of the year as I can truthfully name some redeeming qualities such as the technical aspects, some of the performances, and to my surprise, the rather tight pacing. The film by no means feels rushed, though I will admit I did check the time at one point. But when it comes to personality, this is where “Drive-Away Dolls” is a slightly better movie. Margaret Qualley is a great actress, and if you want a better example of her talent, maybe go watch “Drive-Away Dolls.” Heck, I would even recommend “The Substance,” which some of you might hate me for saying this, was far from my favorite film of 2024. But that film was something that “Honey Don’t!” was not. An experience. As much as I was turned off by the climax of “The Substance,” I will also likely not forget it anytime soon. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand is withering in my brain as we speak. I am going to give “Honey Don’t!” a 4/10.
“Honey Don’t!” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eden.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Splitsville,” “The Long Walk,” “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” and “Him.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Honey Don’t!”? What did you think about it? Or, which film do you prefer? “Honey Don’t!” or “Drive-Away Dolls?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Nobody 2” is directed by Timo Tjahjanto (The Night Comes for Us, Killers) and stars Bob Odenkirk (Breaking Bad, Incredibles 2), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Gladiator), John Ortiz (Kong: Skull Island, American Fiction), Colin Hanks (The Great Buck Howard, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), RZA (The Man with the Iron Fists, American Gangster), Colin Salmon (EastEnders, Krypton), Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future, The Tender Bar), and Sharon Stone (Casino, Basic Instinct). This sequel once again centers around suburban dad Hutch Mansell, who is pulled back into his violent past while trying to have a nice family vacation.
Part of me is surprised “Nobody” ended up getting a sequel. If that film came out before COVID-19, we might be having a different conversation, but unfortunately, it came out in March 2021, when some people were still hesitant to go back to the movies. Despite the film likely missing some box office potential, there is no denying that those who ended up seeing it had a good time, including me. I would have totally been down for a second installment, but with the film flying over some people’s radars, part of me wondered if it was reasonable to even get one in the first place. Nevertheless, we did get one, and when I first saw the trailer, I was given the impression that we would be getting more of what worked in the original film.
“Nobody 2” maintains a lot of what was good about the 2021 original, but it is not perfect.
What does work? To no surprise at all, Bob Odenkirk once again kills it as Hutch. A lot of people, including myself, would say “Nobody” shares some similarities to “John Wick.” One similarity happens to be that the protagonist is not only fighting for himself, but for those he loves. While John Wick spent several movies fighting for a dead dog, we see Hutch in this second outing continue to fight for his family. Remember in the first film when Hutch finds out his daughter’s kitty cat bracelet was taken, and he starts to lose his mind? There is a moment in this film that reminds me of that scene. Granted, this scene presents Hutch losing his mind over something perhaps more important than a bracelet, but it goes to show how easily Hutch will lose it if someone messes with his family.
Speaking of family, the rest of the main cast of characters from the last film come back too. I buy into Bob Odenkirk and Connie Nielen as the main couple. They have good chemistry with each other and blend perfectly with their children. The family members all play a significant role in the film to a certain degree. After all, the film sees the group going on vacation together.
I was also very pleased to see Christopher Lloyd come back as David. Not just because he is Christopher Lloyd, but to me, he was the surprise standout from the last movie. In this film, he has a lot less to do, but every scene with him is a riot. I like the way the film handled him, he was directed in such a way where he practically turned into a big ball of energy, but part of me does wish he played a bigger role in the story.
Lendina, the “big bad” in this film, is played by Sharon Stone. To me, this character is an enigma, because she feels like she is in a much different movie than everyone else. Part of me wants to compliment Stone in one regard because she is undoubtedly evil and not afraid to show it. But she is also cartoonishly evil sometimes. There are moments where I thought she reminded me of a “Fast & Furious” villain. In fact, at first I thought I was watching Charlize Theron on screen. But Stone sometimes nears the point where I am convinced she was supposed to be in a “Power Rangers” project and somehow magically ended up on the set of “Nobody 2.” I do not expect Shakespearean performances out of a movie like this, but it would have been nice to get something a step above what the movie delivered. That said, I am also not going to call Stone’s performance incompetent. If anything, I would call it uneven. Though it would not shock me if Stone gets nominated for a Razzie at the end of the year.
This may sound weird considering my previous complaints, but part of me wishes Stone had more screentime. The movie takes a long time to introduce the character. Despite being a pivotal part of the story, her appearance in the film feels kind of out of the blue. It would be one thing if the movie were longer, but the runtime is 89 minutes. It does not give me a lot of time to get invested in the character. By the time we get to the end of the movie and our protagonist must face off against her, the rivalry did not feel as exciting as it could have been.
I am also a little conflicted on how the final fight concludes. The end of the final fight makes a lick of sense considering the film’s overall themes and tendencies to focus on a group supporting each other when they need it most. It also makes sense because we see Hutch is not perfect when it comes to fighting. But truthfully, the fight spent too much time showcasing what the villain is capable of rather than showing what Hutch, the star of the film, can do going up against said villain.
Despite my complaints, I will acknowledge that this film does generally satisfy when it comes to action. There is not one sequence that was improperly shot or lazily done. The filmmakers spared no expense. If you are simply looking for some solid action sequences, “Nobody 2” has them. This is not my favorite action film of the year. It also does not have my favorite action scenes of the year. But that does not mean the film is bad. If anything, it implies that this has been a pretty good year for action, and “Nobody 2” is the latest project to prove that point, even if it is a step below some other recent movies.
In the end, “Nobody 2” is not a bad movie, but it is definitely inferior to the original. It has action that is about as solid as its predecessor, but the story and characterization is sometimes lacking. The past few months have delivered some terrific action movies, particularly “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “Ballerina.” If you are looking for an action flick to watch in the near future and you want my recommendation, I would probably suggest those two films before this one. I am going to give “Nobody 2” a 6/10.
“Nobody 2” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Honey Don’t!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Eden,” “Splitsville,” and “The Long Walk.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Nobody 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Nobody” installments do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Bad Guys 2” is directed by Pierre Perifel and JP Sans, and stars Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Way Way Back), Marc Maron (Maron, GLOW), Awkwafina (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Renfield), Craig Robinson (Ghosted, The Office), Anthony Ramos (Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, In the Heights), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Danielle Brooks (The Color Purple, Orange is the New Black), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Orange is the New Black), Maria Bakalova (The Apprentice, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm), Alex Borstein (Family Guy, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), Richard Ayoade (The Watch, The IT Crowd), and Lilly Singh (A Little Late with Lilly Singh, Canada’s Got Talent). Struggling with acceptance from the general public, the Bad Guys, who have since turned “good,” are recruited for a job by an all-girl squad of criminals.
Kind of like Illumination, it is somewhat unusual for a DreamWorks animated property to not end up getting a sequel at some point. It was perhaps inevitable this would happen with “The Bad Guys.” The first film was well received by critics and was a hit with families. It is also based on a popular series of books. Naturally, it makes sense to create a “Bad Guys” sequel. As for my thoughts on the original film, I thought it was surprisingly fun, but also a bit disposable. There is also a problem I have with the film that, spoiler alert, I also have with this sequel. More on that later.
If you like “The Bad Guys,” chances are you will like “The Bad Guys 2.” I have my problems with “The Bad Guys” but I enjoyed it just enough to the point where I could say I had an okay time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains everything that works from the original, and delivers it in a new, fresh package that I personally found to be more entertaining.
A lot of the original cast returns for this second outing. Of course you have the film’s big name stars including Sam Rockwell, Awkwafina, and Marc Maron coming back as some of the core characters. Like the original, they unleash tremendous charisma in each of their roles. I appreciated this sequel’s continuation of having Rockwell’s Mr. Wolf (top right) break the fourth wall. It adds a welcoming touch and sucks you into this film’s world.
The film even welcomes back my favorite character from the first outing, Misty Luggins (center), once again voiced by Alex Borstein. Between the two films, she has been promoted from Chief to Commissioner, which ends up becoming one of the script’s many gags. The gag is a simple one… Mr. Wolf repeatedly messes up Luggins’ position. As far as gags go, one could call this lazy, and I would not blame anybody for doing that, but it is saved by how the voice actors, most notably Borstein, deliver their lines. You could feel the ire coming out of Luggins with each misinterpretation.
I like my characters to have depth, but sometimes the simplest character can work if done right. Luggins is one example of this. Because in each scene, much like the previous installment, I got a sense of the character’s passion. Whether it is represented through something as simple as being acknowledged correctly, or as complicated as capturing the Bad Guys once and for all. Luggins feels like DreamWorks’ version of Wile E. Coyote. Between what we saw of her in these two films so far, part of me wishes she could have her own spinoff. Maybe we could see her trying to catch the Bad Guys time and time and time again, and failing. Or maybe a life in a day film showcasing some crazy story or case she has encountered. I think it would also be a great way to showcase Alex Borstein’s chops. She is fantastic in the role.
This is an animated film, so some suspension of disbelief is inevitable. But when the film gets to the climax, I felt the same way that I did during the climax of “Sisu.” The film spends a lot of time getting you immersed into this crazy, zany world, but things that happen on screen get dumber and less realistic by its conclusion. There is a whole concept involving gold that on the surface, sounds intriguing, but the resolution left me with a question regarding how this was handled according to the public eye.
Speaking of suspension of disbelief, much like the original film, I am left wondering why there are not more non-human characters in this world. If “The Bad Guys” were a video game, the only NPCs would be humans. No one else. There are plenty of non-human characters in the forefront, but not so much in the background. Why is this? If you look at a film like “Zootopia,” it has such a diverse group of creatures making up its universe. This film’s universe kind of feels less creative and lazy by comparison. This is not to say the film itself is lazily done. The animation style is stunning and unique. The script is sometimes clever, even if it does get a little too over the top.
When it comes to the DreamWorks Animation library, this is not the most memorable film of the bunch. But it is undoubtedly entertaining. One reason why I would love to go back to it one day is for the action scenes. The film has a couple of creative sequences that feel like they are straight out of a graphic novel. The scenes are flashy and full of life. There is one sequence that takes place in a wrestling ring that is a feast for the eyes.
Although this film is more than just style. As someone who experienced a little trouble finding work once graduating college, there are some scenes that I related to as it properly highlights the competition that comes with the job market. Although in the case of this film’s core group, it is much harder, because they are known for committing crimes, and therefore have a bad reputation.
Heck, they’re literally called the BAD guys! I wonder if Agent Burns from “Bumblebee” would have anything to say about this group.
Sure, the ensemble may have turned good, but their past does not appear to have gone over the general public’s head. Overall, the movie is a good lesson for younger audiences, reminding them to maintain a positive image, because one wrong move could change everything.
To my surprise, at the end of “The Bad Guys 2,” one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind is that I want to see another one. These characters are fascinating and seem to play off each other quite well. I would not mind hanging out with them one more time.
By the way, once the film gets to the credits, do not leave your chair, because there is a mid-credits scene that you might want to stick around for.
In the end, “The Bad Guys 2” is funny, brilliantly animated, and wonderfully paced. It is an all killer, no filler good time. “The Bad Guys 2” maintains many positives from the original and even improves upon some of them. Granted, it also contains some of the negatives. I still cannot get over the fact that there are not more non-human characters in a world like this one. Is that just a me thing? Is this not bothering anyone else? In all seriousness, I think families will have a blast with this film. It is filled with mile a minute humor and my theater, myself included, was laughing quite a bit. I am going to give “The Bad Guys 2” a 7/10.
Before I conclude this review, I would like to point something out in the film’s end credits. Just before the credits conclude, there is a short text that reads “This work may not be used to train AI.” I have no idea if that is a Universal Pictures policy, a DreamWorks policy, or if this was at the request of the director or a producer, but I fully endorse this. I understand that “the future is now,” but as an artist, I would prefer to see more work done strictly by people. We cannot have human stories without a human touch. Anything to have more human stories out there is always a good thing.
“The Bad Guys 2” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another animated family film, “Smurfs.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Together,” “Oh, Hi,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Bad Guys 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which installment of “The Bad Guys” do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Phoenician Scheme” is directed by Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel, The French Dispatch) and stars Benicio del Toro (Sicario, Star Wars: The Last Jedi), Mia Threapleton (The Buccaneers, I Am…), Michael Cera (Juno, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Riz Ahmed (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Sound of Metal), Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Breaking Bad), Mathieu Amalric (Quantum of Solace, The Grand Budapest Hotel), Richard Ayoade (The Bad Guys, The Watch), Jeffrey Wright (Asteroid City, What If…?), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow, Sing), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Doctor Strange), Rupert Friend (Hitman: Agent 47, Homeland), and Hope Davis (Asteroid City, Greenland). This film is about Zsa-zsa Korda, a wealthy businessman who appoints his daughter as the heir to his estate. During his search for a new enterprise, the two become the target of assassins, terrorists, and tycoons.
Even noticeably solid directors have at least one dud on their resume. Steven Spielberg has “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Joel Schumacher has “Batman & Robin.” Meanwhile, for Wes Anderson, his dud would be his most recent film, “Asteroid City,” which despite its technical mastery and somewhat intriguing concept, had uninteresting characters, boring scenes, and a lackluster ending. I like Wes Anderson. Just read my reviews for “Isle of Dogs” and “The French Dispatch.”
There is a saying that you are only as good as your last project, so with “Asteroid City” somewhat fresh in my mind, I went into “The Phoenician Scheme” with moderate at best expectations. When the movie started, I was pleasantly surprised. Unfortunately, that feeling fizzled real fast.
“The Phoenician Scheme” has a fantastic hook. The movie starts with a plane crash, which apparently is one of several our protagonist has gone through. In that same scene, not even thirty seconds in, someone’s head gets blown off and flies out into the sky. Very exciting stuff! Having a solid beginning can lead to promise down the road. First impressions matter, and this movie impressed me right off the bat. But I would say that this scene is where the movie peaked. Because what follows is a complete and utter disappointment of a snoozefest some like to call a motion picture.
It did not take long for me after finishing “The Phoenician Scheme” to declare that it might be my least favorite of Wes Anderson’s filmography. I still have yet to see “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “The Darjeeling Limited,” but from his work that I have seen so far, this is probably the one that I can say is the weakest. And that is sad, because I was not a huge fan of “Asteroid City.” Much like “Asteroid City,” there are things to like in “The Phoenician Scheme,” but the film itself underwhelmed me. I knew what I was getting out of this film to a certain degree given its director. If you like Wes Anderson’s quirky style, good news, it can be found here. But I simply wish there was a little more substance to accompany it.
Most of my positives regarding “The Phoenician Scheme” have to do with the film’s technical aspects. This film, to my lack of surprise, has stunning production design. The color choices of all the surroundings are meticulously chosen and easy on the eyes. Everything in the frame feels organized. The film makes the most of its 4:3 aspect ratio that Wes Anderson has previously used in films like “The French Dispatch” or “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” Despite its consistent vibrance, the film has an old timey feel to it. Even with the score sometimes, which is another tour de force from Alexandre Desplat. The music commands your attention and is up there with “Isle of Dogs” as one of my favorites in a Wes Anderson film.
Watching “The Phoenician Scheme” is like going to an art museum but you are consistently bored or unamused by every single exhibit. Yes, this film looks extravagant and is obviously well done, but is it worth my time? Judging by my repeated urge to fall asleep in the auditorium, I do not think so. As easy on the eyes and ears as “The Phoenician Scheme” is, I wish I could have used those eyes and ears to see and hear something much more valuable.
As a director, Wes Anderson is undeniably quirky. Part of his quirkiness shines through the performances he gets out of his actors. Like some of his other films, his unique way of getting actors to deliver dialogue tends to stand out. There is something about their lines, at least to me, that lacks realism, but nevertheless tends to work in the environment of his films. Watching “The Phoenician Scheme” however, the dialogue comes off as stiff and stilted. Every line feels as if the characters are reading off their finest essays rather than speaking off the cuff or acting like genuine human beings. Seriously! Every other line in this film feels disappointingly robotic!
To make matters worse, this film, like some of Wes Anderson’s previous work, has a stacked, talented cast. If you were to ask a friend who their favorite actor is, chances are their pick is in this movie! Everyone from Benecio del Toro to Tom Hanks to Scarlett Johansson to Benedict Cumberbatch to Bryan Cranston! This movie is kind of like “Amsterdam” with a pinch more polish!
The worst offender among the cast for me is Michael Cera, seen above doing his best Adam Conover cosplay. For the record, I like Michael Cera. I am a big “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” fan. And his performance here somewhat reminded me of his performance in that film. They are not the same on the surface, but when it comes to direction and vision, they feel like they strictly belong in their respective universes. That sounds like a good thing, but in the case of “The Phoenician Scheme,” I was bewildered as to some of the choices they made regarding Cera’s character of Bjørn. Cera unleashes a voice for his character that got on my nerves real fast. The more he talked, the more I wanted to melt my brain.
That said, this film is also shaping up to Mia Threapleton’s (right) big break. For those who do not know, Mia Threapleton is Kate Winslet’s daughter. She was in a few projects before this film, but this is my first time seeing her in a role. She did a great job as Sister Liesl. And I do not mean that by nepotism standards. I got the impression that she could potentially have a career as successful as her mother. She is very talented.
I am by no means a Wes Anderson newbie. I have an understanding that he tends to stylize his dialogue, frame objects or people in the most still-like manner possible, and beautify the background so much to the point where it becomes a character of it own. Anderson is a noticeably a visionary director. He is an auteur. But if anything this is a film that so is overwhelmingly packed with Wes Anderson’s style that he prioritized it before characterization and pacing. As I watched this film, I barely felt anything. I did not care much about the characters, even if they are conceptually interesting. The story occasionally reeked of convolution. Overall, I left this film unsatisfied.
In the end, “The Phoenician Scheme” is a complete bore. One can argue that this film feels like something that only Wes Anderson can do. But if that is the case, that is disappointing because what this film ended up being was a slow, albeit pretty looking espionage story that I won’t even remember in the next year. If you want to watch a good Wes Anderson movie go back and watch “Rushmore.” Go watch “Fantastic Mr. Fox.” Heck, even his earliest feature film, “Bottle Rocket,” was quite fun. If this was my first Wes Anderson film, chances are I would not be looking forward to what he has up his sleeve next. I am going to give “The Phoenician Scheme” a 3/10.
“The Phoenician Scheme” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Life of Chuck!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Materialists” and “Elio.” 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 “The Phoenician Scheme?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a bad film from a filmmaker whose work you traditionally like? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Accountant 2” is directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed this film’s 2016 predecessor. This film stars Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back), Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead, The Punisher), Cynthia Addai-Robinson (Spartacus, Arrow), Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Originals), and J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Whiplash). This film once again follows Christian Wolff who teams up with his brother, Braxton, to find mysterious assassins.
Before going to see “The Accountant 2” I made an effort to rewatch the original. If you remember my amateurish review you would know that I connected to the film at the time. This was mostly due to how the protagonist was written and executed. Ben Affleck plays an individual who has high functioning autism. I have grown up having many of the traits and quirks that we see from various stages of this character’s life such as his lack of urge to socialize with others. I also thought the film does a good job at providing a humanized portrayal of autism as opposed to a more stereotypical, robotic interpretation.
Is “The Accountant 2” as good as the first one? No, it is not. But is it still worth watching? Perhaps. My biggest problem with this film is that it feels less story-driven and a little more action driven. It’s like the writers listened to Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” and suddenly thought, “We’ve cracked the code!”
Now I have no problem with good action. And to be honest, this movie has some good action. However, the action scenes sometimes lack the oomph of those in the original. Part of it is because the story here is rather convoluted. I am not going to pretend the story in the original riveted me all the way through. The movie relied way too much on flashbacks towards the end to the point of utter boredom. But this sequel at times feels overstuffed.
While the film may be slightly above average, one great thing about it is the chemistry between Christian (Affleck) and Braxton (Bernthal). The film spends lots of time putting these two in the same place, and every scene between them is worth the price of admission. There is a fantastic scene where Bernthal says he wants a dog and Affleck says everything possible to confirm that he is a cat person. The delivery between these two is on point each and every time.
Going back to how I relate to the characters in this franchise, I almost see Christian and Braxton as a personal representation of a conflict that has been circling in my mind nonstop throughout my young adult life. While these two bond as brothers, they have their differences. One key difference between these two is their individual wants in life. We see Braxton as a lone wolf, which I have always been throughout most of my life. If he puts his mind to something, he does it. He works on his own terms. But then we find out a little bit about Christian, who would like to have a partner he can check in on every once in a while. In this way, Christian, is a little more than meets the eye. You would not expect someone of his mannerisms to be interested in a relationship, but I buy his desire. As I watched this film I thought these character differences represented my personal yin and yang. Do I love being alone? Quite a bit, actually. But do I want someone to check in on? A part of me thinks about it every day.
Speaking of conflicts, I have a conflicting opinion regarding Christian Wolff in this film. Starting with the positives, I genuinely think Ben Affleck put a lot of effort into his performance and he is a standout as the character. Although some of the choices that were made in regard to the character threw me off. I get that Wolff has autism, but he comes off as a robot in this film, especially in comparison to the original. If anything, Wolff is sometimes a lackluster stereotype for people on the spectrum. For some reason, some of his line delivery and choice of words lack authenticity. I would not say that this film paints autism in the worst light, but sometimes his performance, particularly through his onslaught of stoicism, is overly emphasized. Sure, in the original, Wolff may be a bit robotic, but he also has a heart as well as feelings. In this sequel, he sounds more like the T-800. Sure, Affleck is not entirely robotic. When paired with Bernthal in this film, the two seem like genuine brothers. But if I were to judge Affleck by himself, he is sometimes soulless. Again, this is not an incompetent performance. I just think a little more depth and pizzazz could have been added to it.
“The Accountant 2” is not a movie I can see myself renting or buying to watch on my own schedule. To me, it is a cable movie. It is a movie that I would watch on a Sunday at home and eventually rely on for background noise. Now whether this movie will ever end up on cable is another story. The film is from Amazon after all and I doubt they want anybody leaving Prime or whatever the heck MGM+ is. Seriously, who uses MGM+? Anyone? If you have not seen the original “Accountant,” I much recommend that film over this one. It moves at a better pace, is less convoluted, and honestly does a much better job at characterization than the sequel. I enjoyed getting to know Christian Wolff not only through his profession but as someone who is on the spectrum. I thought the flashbacks during that film, most of them anyway, were used to its benefit. Like this sequel, the original has some decent action, but I cared more about what happened during those action scenes based on what I was learning about Christian as a character at the time. The sequel’s action is not bad, but it suffers from inferior character progression as well as storytelling. If it were not for the perfect chemistry between Affleck and Bernthal, I do not think I would be lending as much praise to this film.
In the end, “The Accountant 2” has its ups and downs. There are other recent films I would recommend watching before this one, especially in the action genre. Although if you are simply looking for good action, you will find it here. But this film is not a full meal. It satisfies in some ways and leaves a little to be desired in others. Do not get me wrong, Ben Affleck does not do a bad job in this film, and neither does Jon Bernthal. But I would not rush to see this film right away. I am going to give “The Accountant 2” a 6/10.
“The Accountant 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Prime Video.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Thunderbolts*” is directed by Jake Schreier (Paper Towns, Beef) and stars Florence Pugh (Oppenheimer, Midsommar), Sebastian Stan (The Apprentice, A Different Man), Wyatt Russell (Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, Black Mirror), Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Magic City), Lewis Pullman (Top Gun: Maverick, Salem’s Lot), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers), Chris Bauer (The Deuce, True Blood), Wendell Pierce (Suits, The Wire), David Harbour (Violent Night, Stranger Things), Hannah John-Kamen (Brave New World, Killjoys), and Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, Enough Said). This film is about a group of antiheroes who work together on a mission where they must face the darkness of their pasts.
Before we get into my thoughts on “Thunderbolts*,” I would like to take a few moments to discuss my current feelings about the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Every time there is a new Marvel Studios project out, I imagine that group as if they were a see-saw. The past couple years or so, I have come across a multitude of extremes. “The MCU is dead!”, “The MCU is back!”, “The MCU is dead again!”, “The MCU is back again!” Personally, the MCU is long from dead. And it always has been. There have been missteps along the way, sure. But many filmmakers would kill to have a project as successful as many of those coming out of Marvel. Yes, 2023 was a lesser year for the studio. Yes, “The Marvels” bombed… Yes, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” underperformed… But in the same year, we also had “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” which was super successful. Marvel was down, but not out.
Then in 2024, Marvel churned out the highest-grossing R rated title of all time with “Deadpool & Wolverine.” And “Agatha All Along” also did well on the TV side.
Flash forward to 2025, things are not off to the best of starts. Sure, maybe “Daredevil: Born Again” is well received. But movie-wise, “Captain America: Brave New World” got old really fast. The box office was somewhat respectable, but it was low by Marvel standards. It probably would have been higher if the film did not have a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. As for my thoughts on the film, I would say it is mediocre. It is the first Marvel film since “Endgame” I did not enjoy. That is honestly not a bad streak.
Now that much of the discourse of “Thunderbolts*” is finding its way online, I am not going to claim the MCU is back. Again, it never died. But I would say the MCU is in a great position right now because “Thunderbolts*” is an incredible time.
There is a sense of homogeneity from one Marvel movie to the next. While this film manages to maintain some of the cliches from prior Marvel projects, “Thunderbolts*” is undoubtedly unique when it comes to the span of the MCU. While the film features familiar characters, they have arguably never been this well written.
Well, maybe except Bucky. He has been around for a bit. His role in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is rather compelling at times.
“Thunderbolts*” goes beyond being a great comic book movie, which is not necessarily a detractor by itself, and gives one of 2025’s deepest narratives yet. This film is about a bunch of nobodies who are tasked to complete a mission together. Basically the Thunderbolts are Marvel’s version of the Suicide Squad. With there being two “Suicide Squad” movies, I would put “Thunderbolts*” in between them. It is nowhere near as bad as the 2016 one, but not quite as enjoyable as the 2021 sequel directed by James Gunn.
What makes “Thunderbolts*” in particular so compelling is its handling of the core characters. Again, these are nobodies. But in some cases, them being nobody is what makes them relatable. I think a lot of people will relate to characters like Yelena because the movie dives into her struggles of having no one by her side. After all, her sister died. She has been away from her parents for some time. She does not have a partner. The movie dives into various obstacles people can have with their mental health. This film came out in 2025, and knowing some of the things going on in the world, it feels like a movie some people will need right now. I can only imagine the conversation this would have gotten had this come out some time in 2020, or 2021, back when COVID-19 started to spread around the world. “Thunderbolts*” is playing a key role in kickstarting this year’s blockbuster season. It is undoubtedly a film that a ton of people are going to see. I imagine a lot of viewers are expecting to have fun. That is a core expectation of many of these tentpole releases. Having seen the film, I can say it is in fact, quite fun. But I also walked out of this film thinking about the people in my life, my social circles, and wonders as to what my future could present should I navigate in a certain direction. Maybe some people could see this film as a bit of a downer, but I think there is enough balance throughout the story to where it could wind up being some of the most fun one can have at the movies this year.
On that note, the humor in “Thunderbolts*” works very well. Just about every joke landed for me. The highlight for me throughout the film, in terms of comedy, is easily David Harbour. This comes as no surprise because I found him to be the standout of “Black Widow,” mainly because of his execution of that film’s more comedic moments. Neither of these films are quite “Guardians of the Galaxy” funny, but that is a tall mountain to climb.
In fact, if I had a critique for the humor, it would be that some of the jokes feel like rewrites of what we have gotten in other Marvel projects. This might not be a surprise because there are so many projects already out, but after so many of them, you are bound to follow a formula or repeat something that was done before. One joke that finds its way into the script is the characters talking about how dumb a particular name is. As someone who likes these movies, I have noticed an arguable overuse of this kind of joke. But rarely does it fail for me, and “Thunderbolts*” is not an exception to the rule. Not only did I find this film’s “name jokes” funny, but they also play a key role in the story down the line.
I am an MCU fanboy. I make an effort to see all the films as soon as they come out. But it does not mean I am ignorant of any drawbacks that come my way. And this movie has some. One that comes to mind is Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Valentina. I do not have anything against how the character was written, but if anything, I felt like Louis-Dreyfus was playing herself. Maybe this is due to watching a lot of “Seinfeld,” but when I look at Valentina and listen to her speak, I cannot help but picture a boss lady variant of Elaine.
Another flaw has to do with the pacing. That is if you can call it a flaw. The film has an entertaining first half, but eventually, things pick up fast and furious to the point where the latter half outshines the former. “Thunderbolts*” is a great film, but I am going to remember it more for the second half than the first, which was fun nevertheless.
Knowing the MCU’s track record as of late, this next flaw should not be a shock. Some of the CGI could be a smidge better. Granted, a lot of the CGI in the film is great, and collectively, the effects are much better than say “Black Widow” or “Thor: Love and Thunder.” But some of the computerized effects looked kind of obvious. Although even those that did seem obvious sometimes looked polished or buyable enough to the point where I could be forgiving of their presence.
While the CGI may not be perfect, one technical aspect that pleasantly surprised me was the color grading of the film. With some occasionally obvious effects aside, I cannot say I have seen an MCU film that looks utterly incompetent. Though a common problem I find with some of these movies is through the color palette. Sometimes the colors do not quite match the mood of the film. “Captain America: Civil War” comes to mind. While it is a more serious MCU installment, I thought the colors were a bit too gloomy and dark for what the film turned out to be, especially with the airport throwdown. The color grading in “Thunderbolts*” was also on the gloomier side, but it felt natural for the story that was being told, as well as the vibe that was lingering in the background. The colors were consistent and amazingly did not take away from the more fun moments of the film. The film was always fun, but in the back of my mind, it was also a bit of a downer when it dove into some of the characters’ struggles.
Another common MCU problem that fails to find its way here is the film’s villain. I am not going to dive into a ton of details regarding the character, but not only were they well written, but I thought they fit perfectly into the mental health motif. There is a climactic sequence involving said character that like several others in the MCU, is heavy on the special effects, but it winds up becoming a one of a kind battle that I do not recall ever seeing in this series of films. This is not my favorite MCU climax, but it is safe to say it is up there with some of the best.
Many of the characters in this film have appeared in other MCU projects. Thankfully, I can claim that you do not need to see those other films to understand what is going on in this one. While the film does reference a couple major events in the MCU that have been documented in other stories, I think an MCU first-timer can go into this film with no experience and have a good time with it. This story feels fresh, which is amazing to say considering the amount of familiar faces that make up the cast both on the film and TV sides.
Although for those who did see “Captain America: Brave New World,” there is one major event involving Bucky that is referenced in the film. It is resolved in a cop out-like manner. If you were looking forward to knowing more about that event, you get more. But not a ton. As much as I enjoyed this movie, this sort of shows the haphazardness of the MCU and how supposedly big setups in previous projects can be met with little payoff. Granted, the setup paid off. But perhaps barely.
If I had any other notes regarding the film, I will note that this is the first MCU appearance of Geraldine Viswanathan, and I thought she did a good job. At one point, her character kind of puts things into perspective for the younger people living in this universe, particularly how some of the major events such as the Battle of New York might come off as something that would now be covered in a history class. I thought that was a nice touch. For those who do not know Geraldine Viswanathan, she is a super talented young actress. This is not her best work. If anything, I recommend checking out the TBS series “Miracle Workers” if you want to get a true sense of Viswanathan’s comedy chops. But I am glad to see her make her way into the MCU.
By the way, there are two extra scenes during the credits. And without giving anything away, I got a big, fat laugh while watching the mid-credits scene. There is some line delivery in the clip that simply amounts to perfection.
In the end, I would give “Thunderbolts*” two big thumbs up. This was a phenomenal time at the movies. Florence Pugh overdelivers in her lead role. David Harbour is comedy gold. Sebastian Stan is stellar as usual. And Lewis Pullman does a great job playing another supporting character named “Bob” following his efforts in “Top Gun: Maverick.” I am looking forward to seeing what the next few months bring in terms of blockbusters. If this year’s upcoming tentpoles are as good as “Thunderbolts*,” then the summer movie season is gonna rock. I am going to give “Thunderbolts*” an 8/10.
“Thunderbolts*” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Rust.” Yes, that one. The movie was not playing in too many theaters, but I was at the right place at the right time, and managed to check it out a few weeks ago. Look forward to my official thoughts coming soon. Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” “The Accountant 2,” “Bring Her Back,” and “Friendship.” If you want to read these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Thunderbolts*?” What did you think about it? Or, with this being the last MCU movie in phase 5, what did you think of this phase overall? Do you have a favorite film or TV show? Personally, my favorite project was “Deadpool & Wolverine” by a clear mile. Let me know your faves down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Dog Man” is directed by Peter Hastings, who also provides a few voices in the film, including the titular character. Joining him is a casting including Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Lil Rel Howrey (The Carmichael Show, Get Out), Isla Fisher (Tag, Now You See Me), Poppy Liu (No Good Deed, Sunnyside), Stephen Root (Office Space, Finding Nemo), Billy Boyd (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Outlander), and Ricky Gervais (Night at the Museum, The Office). This film is set after an event so nonsensical it might just work… Sewing a dog’s head onto a man’s body so both sides can live on as a singular being. The film follows Dog Man’s mission to bring a halt to Petey the Cat’s desire to stop all do-gooders.
My interest in “Dog Man” was almost next to none. There was no way I saw myself paying my hard earned money to see something like this. The trailers barely did anything to motivate me to go see it. I enjoy a good animated flick, but there was nothing about “Dog Man” that made me think it would be worth my time. The humor did not seem to land with me. The general tone felt overly silly for my taste. That said, I ended up watching the film at a free screening a week before it came out. They say the best things in life are free right? Well, that is not always true. Because “Dog Man” is just okay.
“Dog Man” is the latest DreamWorks animated movie. I am rather fond of DreamWorks. I grew up watching several of their animated titles. In fact, I recently rewatched one of my childhood films, “Kung Fu Panda,” and found more layers to unpack from it that I probably did not realize were there when I was watching it for the first time at eight years old. Not every DreamWorks movie hits, but “Kung Fu Panda” packs a mighty punch. Similar to that movie, I can see kids watching “Dog Man” when they are young, revisiting it at a later age, and unpacking more of the film’s lessons. The problem is, I am wondering if they will enjoy the movie as much as they did when they were growing up. This film definitely has material that adults can appreciate, but I think the kids will end up latching onto this film more.
The film cleverly handles Dog Man’s communication. A lot of animated movies will personify animal characters, including dogs. Dog Man is an exception to the rule. Despite having man in his name, the communication style is strictly canine. He does not speak English. He only communicates through barks and howls. Sometimes it is a little over the top, but there are also times where it works. As for the character himself, he is a decently fleshed out center of the film. The story does a good job at meshing the personalities of the two characters we see during the first few minutes as they merge and become one.
You can kind of say this about other major studios too, but I feel like we are experiencing an era in DreamWorks history where each film delivers a different animation style than the previous one. Sure, “Kung Fu Panda 4” felt rather familiar to its predecessors. But if you look back at “The Bad Guys” or “The Wild Robot,” you would probably get a sense that you are looking at something that could only exist in its respective universe. Granted, those two properties are also based on books that have a distinctive style of their own. “Dog Man” is no exception. I saw one review that compared the animation style to “Captain Underpants,” another book series that also became a DreamWorks movie. Turns out, both book properties are by the same author, and “Dog Man” was originally teased in a “Captain Underpants” book. It only makes sense that the two productions look alike.
For the record, I did not watch the “Captain Underpants” movie. If I had to pinpoint something “Dog Man” reminds me of, and I do not know how many people would actually agree with me, the first thing that comes to mind is the “Backyard Sports” series of video games. Remember those? You had the animated characters with the crazy thin eyes? Every time I look at a character’s eyes in this film, I am convinced they were borrowed from a “Backyard Sports” game.
If you go into this movie expecting realism, you are going to be severely disappointed. I mean, come on. The movie is literally about what happens following the stitching of a dog and a man. The movie has a fast-paced, TikTok sort of style to it, to the point where just about every line of dialogue is incredibly piped up and quickly edited. It throws a lot of information in such a short runtime. The film does poke fun at certain tendencies we see in everyday life, especially from pets. We see Dog Man on the chase, completing his task, but he gets distracted by a squirrel. The main rivalry of the film is between a dog and a cat. The cat has a variety of evil plans to capture his rival, including the use of a vacuum cleaner. What is this, “Spaceballs?” The movie reminds me a bit of “The Mitchells vs. the Machines.” Because upon my first watch of both projects, I got the sense that there were so many blink you’ll miss it details to the point where you would have to watch the movie a second time to see what flew over your head. Thankfully, I understood the film’s basic plot, structure, and character motivations. It is not like the film is broken. The film is paced like “Run Lola Run” and contains perhaps a thousand times more instances of dialogue.
That said, even if I did have any interest in picking up on details I missed the first time, I simply do not see myself watching “Dog Man” again. The film is not for me. I do not have a lot of younger children in my social circles, but I have heard from people either in conversation or online that they know kids who love the books on which this film is based. Maybe they will enjoy the movie, but I am not sure how the film will age. The film has good lessons about being a role model and how some people emulate their parents, but it is surrounded by a visually obnoxious series of scenes that almost overwhelm the senses.
Speaking of details, that is also where the devil seems to lie. By that I mean, the devil probably came in and fiddled with them. Because there are parts of this film that are genuinely funny. In fact, there is one gag involving characters exchanging money that had me in stitches. It makes no sense but that is why it works. But going back to this film’s TikTok pace, that can most definitely apply to the humor as well. Forget a mile a minute, the humor in “Dog Man” flies at a kilometer per minute! Having so many jokes could be a good thing. Again, going back to “The Mitchells vs. the Machines,” that film had me laughing nonstop and uncontrollably. That is a film where if I watched it with the windows open, I would probably get a noise complaint from a neighbor. They would probably think I’m a madman. But in the case of “Dog Man,” the movie shoves so much comedy into its script that a lot of it inevitably fails to stick the landing.
The film also has a noticeable amount of news exposition. This is common in a lot of movies and television, but I will give credit to the news sequences in this film having a unique flair to them. Granted, they did add to the film’s overall obnoxiousness, but I will not deny that Isla Fisher does a good job in her role as Sarah Hatoff, a news reporter with tons of screentime.
In the end, “Dog Man” is just fine. I am not a dog person, and I am barely a people person. But I can say, as a movie person, this is as middle of the road as animation gets. There is nothing remotely offensive about “Dog Man.” At times it is undoubtedly creative, but the film ultimately prioritizes quantity over quality. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to comedy. Having a lot of jokes is great, but it is better when all of them land. A noticeable number of them did not do that for me. This is not my least favorite DreamWorks film, but I am still going to give “Dog Man” a 5/10.
“Dog Man” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Love Me,” the brand new sci-fi film starring Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. Stay tuned! If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dog Man?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have any experience with the “Dog Man” books? Are they any good? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Babygirl” is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Instinct) and stars Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos, The Northman), Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats, Trust), Sophie Wilde (Everything Now, Boy Swallows Universe), and Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Mask of Zorro). This film is about a CEO who puts her career and family on the line when she has an affair with a much younger intern.
I saw “Babygirl” at an AMC Theatres location. If you have been to an AMC in the past few years, you may know that Nicole Kidman has served as a bit of a mascot for the brand. I am not completely in love with this, as her spots make up part of the reason why the previews at AMC are so neverendingly long. Honestly, I would be happy if they get rid of the AMC spots containing Kidman altogether. Some see these spots as an anthem, but I find them to be an annoyance. Amazingly, during my screening of “Babygirl,” they did not play one of the Nicole Kidman spots on top of the other 26 or so minutes of theatre promotion and trailers and such. I was a bit perplexed. As much as I hate those ads, I think seeing one of them play before this film in particular would have set the mood.
That said, it does not change the fact that I was rather excited for “Babygirl.” The trailers I have seen for the film are well produced, and allowed me to have high expectations for what was to come. I had a sense of what the movie was about before going in. I think if anything, the trailers did a great job at letting the audience know what the vibe was going to be. The marketing looked fun, compelling, and perhaps most importantly, sexy. After all, desire plays a major part in this film’s narrative, particularly when it comes to the state of our protagonist, Romy.
“Babygirl” is going to end up being one of the more memorable movie experiences I have had this year. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is an experiential event. And it all starts at the beginning of the film when we see Romy’s major problem. The film impressively highlights Romy’s lack of desires with her husband (Banderas) and her struggle to fulfill herself in her sex life. We see this part of the story flesh itself out over time and it unleashes some great acting from both Kidman and Banderas. The two perfectly portray a couple who happen to be on a bit of a decline.
“Babygirl” delivers the vibes I was hoping I would get out of “Challengers.” A lot of people love “Challengers,” but I was not one of them. “Babygirl” is easily the steamiest film I have seen this year. This is a film that I would recommend watching, but I would think twice before putting it on when your parents, or especially your grandparents are in the same room. I think this could make for a hot movie to set the mood on date night. This is especially noticeable with the fiery chemistry between Nicole Kidman’s Romy and Harris Dickinson’s Samuel. Their boss/intern connection eventually develops into something not as necessarily safe for work. Several scenes between these two do much more than satisfy. They also beautifully fit within the context of the story. They help us get to know each of the characters. They remind the audience of Romy’s internal struggle. Both actors are completely believable as said scenes play out. Harris Dickinson was not on my radar previously. Although he had a role in 2022’s “See How They Run,” which I gave a positive review. Dickinson is not just good in this movie, I cannot see anyone else playing his specific character. I left this film wanting to see more of his work. If there is another Harris Dickinson movie coming out, consider me interested.
Now judging by what has been said so far, you might think that I will remember this movie for its eroticism. While that is definitely this movie’s top selling point, the film is layered when it comes to fleshing out its protagonist. I must reiterate, Nicole Kidman is a knockout in this film. She gives a powerful performance that I hope gets plenty of buzz in the coming months. But I love how this film manages to make its main character a CEO. We see Romy in a position of power at work. At home, she is busy raising a family and pleasing her husband to the point where she forgets to take care of herself. Additionally, this film is set around the holidays, which is traditionally a hectic time of year. Romy is busy being this wise, helpful presence in other people’s lives that when all of a sudden Samuel enters her own life, she cannot help but submit to him. I mentioned this film is steamy, but sex is just a selling point. As a character piece, “Babygirl” sings.
Though in more ways than one, “Babygirl” is easy on the eyes. The film has a clean look to it. The color palette looks like something out of an insurance commercial, but I mean that as a compliment. The film is certainly picturesque with some vibrant locations and sets. The camerawork is also very good. The shot choices consistently deliver on immersion. Select shots go on for extended periods of time, allowing me to take in and digest the actions of said shots. There is also one shot in the film that starts in the air and slowly navigates down to several of the characters as they walk through a yard. It is a breathtaking series of images.
Again this movie is set around the holidays, and it does maintain a joyful look to it, even if a good portion of it is spent inside a corporate office. In a sense, kind of like the holidays, the movie has a vibe that meets somewhere in the middle of noticeable stress and occasional happiness. Every moment in this film maintains a brisk pace and there are scenes I practically leapt into the screen. There is one scene at a rave that is arguably worth the price of admission. Although fair warning, if you have trouble with flashing lights, I recommend maybe sitting this movie out. For all I know, “Babygirl” could become a Christmas tradition for some people. Maybe not with the family. But I think if you are either by yourself or with your partner, this could make for a great watch around the holidays. While the films have their notable differences, I think “Babygirl” could even serve as part of a double feature with “Eyes Wide Shut.” After all, both films are associated with sexuality, feature Nicole Kidman, and are set around Christmas! It’s perfect! Also, as the Movie Reviewing Moron, I do not endorse watching “Eyes Wide Shut” with the family either. That’s a no-no.
In the end, “Babygirl” is 2024’s sexiest movie. Nicole Kidman gives a standout performance as Romy. The rest of the cast is also quite solid. Harris Dickinson also notably plays his role to perfection. The film is a great balance between vibes and characterization. I do recommend this film under the right circumstances. Again, do not watch if your parents or grandparents are in the room. Same goes if you have kids. But if you are in the right place at the right time, “Babygirl” is a must see. I am going to give “Babygirl” an 8/10.
“Babygirl” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Complete Unknown,” the brand new movie starring Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Babygirl?” What did you think about it? Or, what movie do you watch every year around the holidays? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Juror #2” is directed by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino) and stars Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, The Garfield Movie), Toni Collette (Hereditary, The Way Way Back), J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Saturday Night), Chris Messina (I.S.S., The Mindy Project), Zoey Deutch (The Suite Life on Deck, The Politician), Cedric Yarborough (Speechless, The Goldbergs), and Kiefer Sutherland (Flatliners, Designated Survivor). This film is about a family man who struggles with a moral dilemma while serving as a juror on a high-profile murder trial.
As a hardcore moviegoer, I am always intrigued when I know I have the opportunity to take part in a unique experience. Over the past number of years, I have seen various Christopher Nolan movies in IMAX 70mm. I went to a free screening of the 2020 film “Emma.” at a theater just outside of Boston because the film’s star and director, Anya Taylor-Joy and Autumn de Wilde, were there as part of their press tour. During a vacation in Los Angeles, I ended up watching “Turning Red” at the El Capitan Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard just days into its 2022 release. With the film dropping on Disney+ at the same time, the El Capitan was one of the few ways I could actually see the film in a cinema. The film was playing in select locations in California and New York, and I was lucky enough to be close to one of them.
Similar to that last example, “Juror #2” continuously played in a limited number of theaters since its early November release. I was lucky enough to catch a screening at one of these theaters on the fourth week of its run. I say this not just because of the limited availability, but because the film is so good that it makes me wish more theaters were playing it.
Unfortunately, after just a little more than a month, it looks like the movie’s theatrical run has come to an end. Even in markets like New York and Los Angeles, there are no showtimes to be found. The film is however available for home viewing, and while it is not guaranteed you will get the definitive experience, you certainly will get a great film. This is one of the most engaging movies I have watched all year. It is not short on edge of your seat moments and stellar characterization. The film is helmed by Clint Eastwood, and it amazes me to know that he is 94 years old and still making movies as excellent as this.
Nicholas Hoult plays the film’s lead, Justin Kemp, and he kills it. I do not think Hoult is going to win an Oscar this season, but if he does, or at least gets nominated, I think he has the film’s scribe, Jonathan Abrams, to thank to a certain degree for giving him such delicious material to work with. Hoult is given quite a bit to do in this film, and he handles all of it very well. He plays a complicated character who loses not even a single ounce of admirability as he goes on.
This film puts Justin Kemp, in a place where you can easily see his internal struggle. He runs into a scenario that I could imagine most people with a sense of decency would never want to face. The film presents his journey in such a way that makes me like his character the entire time, even though I know he kind of has a dark side. I do not mean this in a bad boy or admirable jerk or lovable idiot kind of sense. Kemp is genuinely a good guy who must deal with the consequences that are given to him. He is not perfect, but the movie gives you enough background to like him despite his flaws.
Hoult easily outshines everyone in the supporting cast, who are by no means doing a bad job, but Hoult is in a league of his own. That said I think Amy Aquino is likable as Judge Thelma Hollub. She plays the part well. The same can be said for Toni Collette, Chris Messina, and Kiefer Sutherland (above) as Faith Killebrew, Eric Resnick, and Larry Lasker respectively. Some of the supporting jurors get their moment to shine when it is relevant to the story. A few of those moments stood out. I also enjoyed seeing one juror who was written in such a way where the movie presents her to be brainwashed by cliches of the true crime genre. That said if I had one complaint, and it is a minor gripe if anything, this film for the most part feels grounded, that character is almost a cartoon in certain moments. I do not dislike her, but tonally, she almost feels like she is in a different project.
While Hoult’s chances this awards season are still up for debate, I have to say “Juror #2” has some of the cleanest editing I have seen in a film all year. The film is essentially linear, though it also contains perfectly placed flashbacks and each moment is timed perfectly to generate a proper reaction. There are quite a few moments where this movie had my eyes glued to the screen and a lot of it has to do with how long it took me to process each moment.
The film also ends on a perfect note. I will not spoil it because as far as I am concerned, Warner Brothers for some reason wants no one on earth to see this film. But as if the final 10, 20 minutes are already engaging enough, the film throws in an appropriate final note. One could argue that this final note is predictable. I would not judge you for saying that, but I would say it is fitting, so I would not use the “predictable” complaint here. I would rather have a predictable ending that makes sense as opposed to an out of left field ending that has no place in the narrative whatsoever. To me, this final note is done in such a way where I like it more for its overall execution as opposed to the fact that someone thought to insert it in the film to begin with. I think such a sentiment can fit for the rest of the film. The film itself is not entirely predictable. It has parts that you can tell a certain thing is probably going to happen, but every action in this film is done in what can almost be described as the finest way possible.
With Clint Eastwood being 94 years old, there is a possibility that “Juror #2” could be his last film. If that is the case, I would like to say that this is a much better way to cap things off than the middle of the road 2021 film “Cry Macho.” But also, I hope that by some miracle, “Juror #2” comes back to theaters so more people can see it on the big screen. This is a film that if it were released in a wider capacity, probably would have generated more discussion about the legal system, moral dilemmas, and been a water-cooler conversation piece. I wish the movie to have some success at home, but like a lot of movies that go to theaters, I wish it had more time and accessibility. Sure, it is probably going to rack up solid word of mouth. But I wish it had a bigger release that way people watching it at home are more likely to have faith that it is going to be worth their time. And for the case of “Juror #2,” it is definitely worth your time.
In the end, there are a number of reasons to watch “Juror #2.” It is a spectacularly written, well-paced, thought provoking thriller. Nicholas Hoult, again, probably is not going to win that many awards this season, but I would not be mad if he gets one or two nominations because he plays one of the most complicated characters I have seen in any film this year. The film’s supporting cost from Toni Collette to Chris Messina to even J.K. Simmons all play their roles nicely. If this is Clint Eastwood’s swan song, it is a great note to end on. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The quality of this project only makes me curious to know if he has another one just as good up his sleeve. I am going to give “Juror #2” an 8/10.
In fact, going back to “Cry Macho,” “Juror #2” has now made more money at the box office in a handful of theaters than “Cry Macho” did during its entire run. For the record, “Cry Macho” made $16.5 million whereas “Juror #2” has racked up $19.9 million. Both failed to make their budget back, but I honestly would have liked to know what the case would have been if “Juror #2” were playing more in rural areas and the suburbs. Granted, there are external factors affecting “Cry Macho’s” release including a simultaneous drop on HBO Max and continued questioning over safety when it comes to COVID-19. But even so, for this film to make as much money as it did given the circumstances is not bad. I just wish there were more ways to see it.
“Juror #2” is now available on VOD and is available on Max for all subscribers on December 20th.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for one of the most popular movies out right now, “Wicked.” I had a chance to see it opening weekend, so I will let you know my thoughts on the phenomenon. Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Juror #2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Clint Eastwood film? There are plenty to choose from, so let me know which one you think is best down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.
Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.
I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”
There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.
I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.
It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.
I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.
Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.
You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.
Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.
But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.
Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.
For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.
There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.
The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.
For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.
This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.
In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 