“Cookie Queens” is directed by Alysa Nahmias (Unfinished Spaces, Wildcat) and is a documentary about Girl Scouts from varying walks of life all trying to reach their goals while selling the organization’s cookies.
Truth be told, I do not recall ever having a Girl Scout Cookie. That is despite having a younger sister in my household who was a Girl Scout herself. I was more of an Oreo guy growing up. Give me Double Stuf or give me death. Even as someone who is not much of a Girl Scout Cookie enthusiast, I found myself interested in “Cookie Queens,” as its trailer did an effective job at presenting something that was likely going to dive into the organization’s members’ business tactics of upselling while also presenting an adorable story about these young ladies finding their way as entrepreneurs.
To be honest, “Cookie Queens” surprised me. Well, not entirely. I went into this film expecting to enjoy it, which for the record, I certainly did. “Cookie Queens” by all means a delight that I think would make a great watch for families, especially for ones with young girls. After all, this is a film about young girls who are likely to serve as positive role models. I am not surprised by any of what I am saying, but what did surprise me was this film’s range in its cast.
I was expecting all of the Girl Scouts to be like one another in terms of their ambitions. While all the Girl Scouts establish personal ambitions during the film, I was moved to see that it did not solely focus on girls who were trying to sell thousands of cookie boxes in a season. Not to say that is not interesting, but I think much like the different flavor options Girl Scouts sells through their cookie brand, a little variety goes a long way.
The movie revolves around four Scouts in particular. One of those girls is named Ara, who struggles with diabetes and maintains a positive attitude the entire time she is on screen. While Ara has a set number of cookies she would like to sell, she is much more humble when it comes to what she wants to achieve as a salesperson. In fact, while some of the other Scouts are vying to go on big trips, Ara just wants to get stronger and be able to pull a wagon around without feeling the need to pass out. Ara seems to care about the little things compared to everyone else.
On the other side of the coin, you have Nikki, Olive, and Shannon Elizabeth…
No, this is not an “American Pie” spinoff. Get that out of your heads, you perverts.
Nikki wants to follow in her sister’s footsteps. Her sister was a Girl Scout who sold enough cookies and took a trip to Europe. She wants to go there as well. There’s Olive, who comes to find that no number is too high for her to try to achieve when it comes to her sales. As for Shannon Elizabeth, she wants to sell enough cookies to win a free summer camp.
What really brings this documentary home is how much it channels the stress of everyone involved in the process of selling Girl Scout cookies. Sure, the film occasionally shows the customers in some cases paying a little more for the cookies than they anticipated, but for those selling these cookies, this is not entirely fun and games. These young girls are taking time out of their day, going outside to wherever spot is most appropriate all in the hopes of making enough money to hit their goals. Not everyone associates being young with hard work. Youth is a time for play, all while growing into someone who will likely worry about hard work later in life. But that is not the case for the four girls who make up the main cast.
Not to mention, their families have to buy the cookies in advance, so that is money out the window, which makes it all the more stressful if only a certain amount of cookies end up selling by the season’s end. The documentary primarily revolves around young girls, but this is the part of the film that I would find many adults relating to or appreciating the most, especially as prices for everything continue to go up.
And for these young girls, selling cookies is not the only thing keeping them busy. For example, Shannon Elizabeth is also into karate. In fact, she implements her enthusiasm for martial arts into her cookie sales. Perhaps the funniest part of the film’s trailer features Shannon on a vertical video advertising herself as a Cookie Ninja, and telling her audience to “buy cookies, or else,” while wearing martial arts-appropriate clothing.
If I had any complaints about “Cookie Queens,” it would probably be that this film sometimes plays out like a scripted reality show. There are certain moments that feel somewhat fabricated, set up, or overdone, which are not the first terms I would expect to use when describing a documentary about young girls selling cookies.
Does this feel like a Girl Scouts commercial? I can see why someone says it is, but given how much the film dives into the downsides of selling cookies, I think the film is balanced enough to the point where it also critiques the organization. I said before the film features positive role models, but I also think that if some girls follow in their footsteps, they might find themselves under similar stress to the girls on screen. Yet there is also a saying that great risk means great reward, and this film shows that is possible with its main quartet.
On a more personal note, I do not know if this film is going to have any replay value for me down the line. Maybe it is because I am not the direct target audience. I was never a Girl Scout. I am a straight white male who does not eat Girl Scout Cookies. Yet let it be known that you do not need any attachment to the Girl Scouts organization or like Girl Scout Cookies to enjoy this movie. “Cookie Queens” is sometimes adorable, other times serious, and all times admirable.
In the end, “Cookie Queens” is a cute watch. Is it the greatest, most riveting documentary ever? No. But even though it is cute, it reminds its viewers that selling cookies is not always cuddly. Sure, some of it comes off as scripted, but even some of the more scripted moments offer entertainment value. The main cast is charming and likable, and I think the film could inspire young girls to dream big. I am going to give “Cookie Queens” a 7/10.
“Cookie Queens” is now playing in theatres. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! As a reminder, the next episode of Scene Before’s Movie Requests is dropping Monday September 7th and it is going to feature actress Melissa Barrera! What film do you think this “Abigail” star suggested I should watch? Find out Monday here on Flicknerd.com and YouTube! Please subscribe to my channel if you have not done so already! And while you are at it, check out the preview above!
My next review is going to be for “Tony!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Spa Weekend,” “Coyote vs. Acme,” and “Idiots.” 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 “Cookie Queens?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Girl Scout Cookie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Toy Story 5” is directed by Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E) and stars Tom Hanks (Cast Away, The Polar Express), Tim Allen (Last Man Standing, Home Improvement), Joan Cusack (Saturday Night Live, Toys), Conan O’Brien (Late Night with Conan O’Brien, Conan), Scarlett Spears (Wicked: For Good, General Hospital), Greta Lee (Russian Doll, The Morning Show), Shelby Rabara (Steven Universe, Goliath), Mykal-Michelle Harris (Mixed-ish, Raven’s Home), and Craig Robinson (The Office, Brooklyn Nine-Nine). This film follows an eight-year old Bonnie as her toys watch her become obsessed with a tablet right before their eyes. The sudden shift prompts the toys to wonder about their future, as well as Bonnie’s.
I do not know about you, but to me, “Toy Story 5” felt inevitable. This was especially true when “Toy Story 4” came out in 2019, started its box office run with a bang, and ultimately become one of Disney’s several billion-dollar grossers that year. That said, there is something about this franchise that works just about every time. Each story, in some way, tends to justify its existence. Some more than others, but still.
The original “Andy trilogy” remains one of cinema’s most remarkable achievements through its technological feats, great storytelling, likable characters, and balanced presentation that is perfect for all ages. While I found “Toy Story 4” to be much weaker than the original three, I still found the film to be incredibly entertaining. It is also one of the best-looking animated films I have ever seen. There are one or two shots involving a cat that linger in my mind to this day.
When I heard Pixar was doing a “Toy Story 5,” I was onboard. Then I heard what it was about and I knew I was going to get my tickets ASAP. For those who need to know, “Toy Story 5” showcases what happens when modern technology plays an important role in Bonnie’s life, thus prompting her to abandon her toys. I do not have much of a connection to today’s youth, but I come across tons of younger people who, based on an initial impression, seem to be seriously attached to their electronics. Quite often, when I go out to a restaurant, I will find a family nearby whose children are staring at a tablet. I am not going to pretend I was not in the same boat as a child. I would occasionally bring my Game Boy Advance SP or Nintendo DS to a restaurant to kill time before food arrives. Heck, as an adult, I bring my laptop to a restaurant to write material for this blog.
Electronic addiction knows no age.
Overall, I thought “Toy Story 5,” much like “Toy Story 4,” is not quite in the same boat as the original Andy trilogy. But this is by all means a step up from the last movie.
This fifth installment starts off with a bang. There are a couple key moments that introduce major threads. Including one involving an army of Buzz Lightyears designed with a modern twist, and another where we see a ton of abandoned toys warning Bonnie’s toys about the dangers of tech. It was at this point that I was convinced that I was watching a horror flick. Then when we introduce Bonnie… We see this truly heart-shattering moment where she asks her parents why she does not have any friends. She asks such a question after the movie reveals she is still playing with traditional toys, but those around her are relying on LilyPads to entertain themselves.
I do think it is slightly interesting though that only now in the “Toy Story” universe we are seeing technology come to life. We have been through four movies and a ton of other electronics have been featured throughout. These include TVs, game systems, and phones. Now that a tablet has entered the chat, we have our first instance of a pure electronic device as we define it come alive. It is a bit odd as Andy had a gaming console in his room, something specifically designed for play, and we never saw that do the same. Then again, perhaps I am being a bit harsh. After all, it relies on various wired connections, whereas the LilyPad is a wireless tablet that does need charging, but its setup is friendlier for multi-purpose handheld use. So… Does that mean if Andy had a Game Boy growing up, that would come to life too? Would a Nintendo Switch come to life in this universe? That is a portable device to some degree. So many questions.
Though as I say that, the LilyPad, while it definitely behaves a lot like an iPad, has a design that appears to be more of a reference to LeapFrog devices, which are geared towards younger audiences. After all… LilyPad… LeapFrog… The two names are quite similar. Granted, LilyPads come in more colors than green, but still. Maybe the device is supposed to take elements from both LeapFrogs and more traditional, everyday tablets like iPads, as devices like iPads are more likely to be used for social purposes. Also, given Pixar’s connections to Apple, I am surprised they did not implement select Apple sound effects or Easter Eggs like they did at certain points in “WALL-E.”
Another thing I should note is that this is Jessie’s story. Not Woody’s. I have no problem with that. After all, when breaking down the “Toy Story” movies, it is not exactly about the toys themselves, but more so their relationship with whoever possesses them. With this being a “Toy Story” installment, it should not be a shock that there is some thread in the story having to do with “x toy” feeling apprehensive that “y person” will not play with them anymore. All of Bonnie’s toys, but Jessie most especially, is nervous that LilyPad is going to replace them for good. I like this obstacle. It taps into the fear that children could grow up without an imagination because they are staring at screens all day. In fact, there is a great scene where we see Bonnie, whose face is still as can be, staring at her tablet nonstop. One of my favorite moments involving Bonnie’s attachment to the device is seeing her dad come into her room. When Bonnie is communicating with her dad, she is not looking at him. She is looking at the device and talking at the same time. Bonnie is genuinely hooked.
If you ask me, I think there is a place for tech in younger people’s lives. We live in a world where not everyone has to be in the same room to socialize anymore. Of course, nothing can replace the in-person experience of hanging out, but it is cool to know that people can come together to play games online, chat online, and all other sorts of things. If anything, this film feels more like an anti-peer pressure movie as opposed to an anti-tech movie. The way the story plays out taps into Bonnie’s social life, and how the LilyPad has enhanced it significantly. She has always had the toys, but not anyone who wanted to play with her. It kind of reminded me of when I was a child and I was still playing Nintendo games whereas other people I knew were diving into first-person shooters.
Going back to Woody, while it definitely made for a good marketing push to have Woody and Buzz reunite, I think this movie did not necessarily need Woody in it for it to flow. Sure, Woody plays a bit of an essential role when he comes on screen and he is trying to save abandoned toys. But this is a story that probably could have been done almost as effectively without him. Of course, Tom Hanks does a good job with the role. No surprise there. That said, he has way less to do this time around than the other movies.
That said, I am glad Buzz has stuck around for this movie. This film dives further into an ongoing element of his story that has been touched in previous movies, and I thought they did a great job with it. By the end of the film, I was satisfied with where they took it.
Although this movie is not all tech… There is some play, and this film may have some of the coolest play scenes yet. It shows what is going on in the kid’s imagination while playing with the toys. It brings in some cool frames and backgrounds. This also unleashes a clever Easter Egg involving Conan O’Brien’s character, Smarty Pants (middle). As a human character plays with him, we see in their imagination that the character has a hat of reddish-orange hair, much like the actual Conan O’Brien.
Speaking of Smarty Pants, I do not think there is anyone else on earth more qualified to voice this character than Conan O’Brien. I say that not just because I am a fan of him as an entertainer, but during his late night hosting days, I have noticed that O’Brien has a unique ability to take the most terrible or odd bit and spin it in a way where it can be as entertaining as possible. In actuality, that is just a nice way of saying that I have mixed feelings about the character.
As a 26 year-old, toilet humor has not aged well with yours truly. Not to say it cannot work. In fact, it sometimes does in this movie. But it does feel a bit odd that Pixar decided to use toilet humor. They usually aim a little higher when it comes to attempts at humor. I was surprised to say I never gagged or cringed at any of the jokes from this character, but there are times that I wish I laughed just a little harder. Some of the jokes tend to repeat themselves or come off as some variation of a joke that has been told previously. Maybe it is to reflect the simplistic nature of the character compared to the LilyPad, which is the fancy dancy piece of modern technology, but some of the jokes got old fast.
Even with its flaws, “Toy Story 5” is worth watching. It is beautifully animated, as should be no surprise given how Pixar’s films are usually stunning. The voice cast all play off each other perfectly. The film is kind of sad to think about, because it reveals that technology is so integrated into people’s lives to the point where we cannot live without it. In some cases, we might not even have friends because of it. “Toy Story 5” is not necessarily a movie that begs its viewers to put down the tablet or step away from the computer, but more so reminds people to have a decent balance between technology and real life.
In the end, “Toy Story 5” is a fantastic movie. It is a perfect watch for the entire family. Is it the best “Toy Story” installment? No. But it does not mean that you should brush it aside. If anything, the most prominent critiques I have for this film are that some of the jokes are better than others, and as much fun as it is to see Woody and Buzz, much like old times, you could almost take Woody out of the movie and have it feel no different. Keep Buzz though. His presence is essential to the story. This movie showcases the ups and downs of technology in daily life. It serves as a cautionary tale as to what can happen with constant use of technology, but the movie does not suggest that tech should be destroyed in its entirety. Pixar is responsible for the two best animated films this year so far. This movie and “Hoppers.” The studio has been on fire lately. I am going to give “Toy Story 5” an 8/10.
“Toy Story 5” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! As a reminder, in honor of Scene Before’s 10th anniversary, I am currently working on an original web series called Movie Requests. It is a video series that sees me reviewing movies suggested by some of your favorite stars. Be sure to check out my latest episode featuring Sandi Harding, the owner of the last Blockbuster Video on the planet, located in Bend, Oregon. In this episode, Harding suggests I should talk about “The Goonies.” To hear my thoughts on the movie, click the video above! If you like the video and want to see more episodes of Movie Requests, hit the like button and subscribe to my YouTube channel! I also share the videos on this blog, but the fastest way to be alerted about them is to subscribe on YouTube!
My next review is going to be for “Supergirl.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Jackass: Best and Last,” “Obsession,” “Maddie’s Secret,” “Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass,” “The Odyssey,” and “Her Private Hell.” 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 “Toy Story 5?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Toy Story” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Breadwinner” is directed by Eric Appel (Die Hart, Weird: The Al Yankovic Story) and stars Nate Bargatze (Your Friend, Nate Bargatze, Nate Bargatze: Hello World), Mandy Moore (Tangled, This Is Us), Colin Jost (Saturday Night Live, Tom & Jerry), Zach Cherry (Fallout, Severance), Martin Herlihy (Saturday Night Live, The Running Man), Kumail Nanjiani (The Big Sick, Eternals). and Will Forte (Scoob!, The Last Man on Earth). This film is about a dad living in the suburbs who must adapt to a stay-at-home parent lifestyle when his wife gets the opportunity of a lifetime to take her invention to the next level.
I love comedy. I think the world is a better place for having it. Sadly, comedy films are at a bit of a low point. This is not to say that they are dead, there have been wins here and there, but the comedy genre does not feel the same as it did pre-COVID. Part of this may be because a lot of mainstream comedies are finding their way onto streaming services. While some viewers may not care, it kind of turns me off, and makes me think that the people who made the movie do not have much faith in it.
So, when I found out that “The Breadwinner” was going to be a theatrical release, I was pleased. Well, sort of. Because the trailers, while not the worst I have ever seen, did not look fantastic. I cannot say I outright laughed at anything the trailers had to offer.
But you know what? Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Perhaps “The Breadwinner” listened to me every time I watch a comedy trailer, see all the funny jokes, and complain that there is nothing else that happens to be funny when the film comes out. The good news is, there are moments of the film that I did not see in the marketing that made me laugh. Kumail Nanjiani plays a supporting character and he is easily the best part. He has the funniest lines and visual gags. If there is any reason to see this movie, it is him.
Beyond that, I cannot come up with another reason to check this project out. That is unless you want to watch an hour and a half commercial that technically qualifies as cinema.
I have seen Nate Bargatze do standup both through prerecorded specials and live events. He puts on a good show. While not my favorite comedian working today, I think he has a knack for family-friendly humor. The kind that you would expect to fly on an episode of “America’s Got Talent.” Given his success with the standup scene, I was wondering if Nate Bargatze would be able to bring something fresh to the comedy film genre. While the film does feel rather on brand for Bargatze’s standup persona, I think said persona is perhaps handled better on a stage rather than a screen.
“The Breadwinner” feels like an extended episode of “Everybody Loves Raymond,” and not a very good one. Nate Bargatze plays Nate Wilcox, the “average guy” character with a steady job. Mandy Moore plays Katie, a stay at home mom. They have three children and all live in the suburbs together. When Katie gets an opportunity to make something of herself outside the home, it throws Nate off and forces him into the stay-at-home dad role. For Nate, this goes about as well as you, and probably he, would expect. Speaking of things that did not go well, the jokes are more often misses than hits. At no point did the battleship sink. You can only have Nate Bargatze fall down so many times and expect it to be hilarious. The attempts at humor are not only unfunny, but a lot of them feel been there, done that, and in certain cases, done better.
This is a PG movie, and I did see some children at my screening. I would be curious to know how well this comedy is going to age for the younger viewers who check it out. But as a 26-year-old who has quite a few flicks under his belt, the jokes come off as too familiar and predictable for them to work.
This film sort of takes me back to when Happy Madison comedies dominated theatres. And by that I mean, the film reminded me of what I sometimes hated about those movies. This is a glorified, shameless, endless commercial.
Product placement and in-film advertising is nothing new. Also, this is a Sony movie, so this is most certainly nothing new for them. This film reminds me a lot of “The Emoji Movie,” which so incessantly flashes brands on the screen and even makes them interwoven so heavily into the plot to the point where part of the climax would not be possible if it were not for the Twitter bird mascot saving the heroes. With this being a Sony movie, of course, they decided to put in some tie-ins to their properties. There are a couple noticeable nods to “Jeopardy!” for example, that are frankly inoffensive.
But would anyone like to guess how the story moves forward when Katie decides to take her invention to the next level? She goes on “Shark Tank,” of course! Do not get me wrong. A lot of people would, realistically, kill to bring their product on that show for the chance of getting a deal. But I would be willing to bet five bucks that if this were not a Sony movie, “Shark Tank” would make no appearance in this flick whatsoever, as that is also a Sony show. Also, the scene is about as dumb as can be.
Are you seriously telling me that in regards to Katie’s invention, that Kevin O’Leary says he’s out because Nate walks onto the set while eating a donut and presenting himself as the antithesis of a fashion model? Would the real Kevin O’Leary do this? I don’t think so. Some of you might be saying, “Come on, it is a character, let him be.” Yeah, but judging by Nate Bargatze’s performance that lacks any and all transformation, I am not quite sure how much acting is really going on in this film. Not to digress, but the movie tries to present this whole gag where Nate becomes known as “the donut guy.” I understand the Internet can be odd and rude, but this has got to be one of the dumbest viral trends I have ever seen. Then again, I remember a time when portions of the Internet thought the Harlem Shake was cool, so there is that.
“Shark Tank” is not even the biggest culprit of this film’s neverending stream of commercialism. Because this movie really wants you to buy a Toyota. And frankly, it fails miserably. Not just because “The Breadwinner” is a terrible movie by itself, but also because if this were a genuine Toyota ad, I would question its messaging. My mom and I saw the film together, she liked it by the way. Upon discussing our difference in opinion, one of the first things I said to her as we left the cinema is that the film paints Toyota as an anti-family company. If anything, Toyota is the villain. Somebody give Nate Bargatze a Ford so he can go to town on a Toyota dealership!
Oh, and don’t forget to remind Nate Bargatze to take that Toyota to Walmart for some errands! And also don’t forget to tell the talent to take every other brand name cereal off the shelf to make sure everyone knows that is exactly what the family is buying! This movie cost $25 million to make, and I am sure most, if not entire the budget was paid for with this endless charade of brand bootlicking.
There is not much legitimate acting going in this movie, but based on the direction everyone is given, they fulfill the basic requirements of their roles. The women who play the Wilcox sisters, Stella Grace Fitzgerald, Birdie Borria, and Charlotte Ann Tucker, are sometimes adorable and play off the other characters well, even if some of their jokes feel like they are written for a Disney Channel original movie.
Going back to what I said about this film feeling like an extended “Everybody Loves Raymond” episode, the more I think about this film’s director’s background, I can see why. While Eric Appel has a lot of experience behind the scenes making material within the comedy genre, most of his material is TV-based. Even his more recent feature films did not get theatrically released. He directed “Weird: The Al Yankovic Story,” which is a Roku Original. Beyond that, some of his more recent projects include the “Die Hart” films on Prime Video, where Kevin Hart plays a version of himself. …Doesn’t he do that in every other movie he’s in too?
Plus, the writers of this film do not have much experience on the big screen either. In addition to starring in the film, Nate Bargatze also has a screenwriting credit. Upon looking at his IMDb, this is also Bargatze’s first acting credit in a feature film. The other writer, Dan Lagana, mostly has a TV background. The two also produce the film as well alongside Jeremy Latcham, a former Senior Vice President of Production and Development of Marvel Studios. So, you have all these minds coming together who for the most part, are not exactly known for feature filmmaking. I am not against these people giving filmmaking the old college try. But as for this try, it was a fail. These people got their start, but it was not the finest of beginnings. If anything, I am glad to see a studio put their money where their mouth is, which judging by this film’s content, their mouth was probably on a Toyota’s trunk fairly recently, and put a comedy in theaters. That is nice to see in this day and age. That said, this does feel like a comedy that was probably intended to go to streaming, but somehow wound up on the big screen.
In the end, “The Breadwinner” made me lose some brain cells. Nate Bargatze is a talented comedian, but I frankly think standup is where he is best. I am not sure how much of a future he is going to have as a movie star. I do not know if he is aiming to pursue more film roles, but if he does, I hope they are superior to what he has given here. The worst thing about this film is simply the fact that I did not find it funny. Yes, I emitted a chuckle here and there, and Kumail Nanjiani saves the film whenever he pops up on screen. But I was expecting more from someone who is killing it in the standup scene. Instead, “The Breadwinner” is essentially this year’s version of “Easter Sunday,” starring Jo Koy. It is a film that wastes the talent of a successful comedian, as well as my time. I am going to give “The Breadwinner” a 2/10.
“The Breadwinner” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! This Tuesday, July 14th, get ready to make it a “Blockbuster Night!” Or… Day, I do not care. Your choice. Either way, I say such a thing because the next episode of Movie Requests is going to feature Blockbuster Video owner Sandi Handing! She owns the Blockbuster Video in Bend, Oregon. That is the last one still open! I had the privilege of meeting Harding in November, when she requested I should watch a certain movie whose title will be revealed when the next episode of Movie Requests officially drops! You can catch the video on Tuesday July 14th on Flicknerd.com and YouTube! Make sure you subscribe to my channel! It may not give you superpowers, but it will make you super aware of when exactly this episode drops! And isn’t the power of knowledge the greatest thing of all?
My next review is going to be for “Disclosure Day!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Toy Story 5,” “Supergirl,” “Jackass: Best and Last,” “Obsession,” “Maddie’s Secret,” and “Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass.” 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 Breadwinner?” What did you think about? Or, have you seen any of Nate Bargatze’s standup material? Look, I may have been harsh on this movie. Although Bargatze is not a comedic hack. He can put on a good show. I will look forward to his next standup special or upcoming gig in the New England area, but “The Breadwinner” was not for me. Ah well, can’t win ’em all. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” is directed by Jon Favreau (Iron Man, The Jungle Book) and stars Pedro Pascal (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, The Last of Us), Jeremy Allen White (The Bear, The Iron Claw), Brendan Wayne (Ahsoka, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), Lateef Crowder (Mile 22, Tekken), Jonny Coyne (The Toxic Avenger, The Blacklist), Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street), and Sigourney Weaver (Ghostbusters, Avatar). In this film, the title characters go on a mission to recover Jabba the Hutt’s son, Rotta the Hutt, in exchange for information.
To me, “Star Wars” is life. As someone who has been reviewing movies on this site for the past decade, I always try my darndest to separate myself from my predisposed biases. When it comes to the “Star Wars” franchise, I think I did a decent job at that for the most part. The one exception that comes to mind is “The Last Jedi.” I gave that movie a 9/10, but upon rewatching it, I found myself highly questioning my original grade. I found the characters more annoying, certain scenes less interesting, and I was reminded of pacing issues I brushed aside the first time around. There are neat things about the movie, but is it a good movie? Not really.
Since my surprisingly positive review of “The Rise of Skywalker,” and yes, I stand by my original 6/10 grade, “Star Wars” has not had a major motion picture come out. They mainly focused on TV, not all of which I watched, but I enjoyed parts of it. Thankfully, “The Mandalorian” is one of those things I enjoyed. “The Mandalorian” season 1 brought something new to the franchise while maintaining the fun of the property. Season 2 kept up the pace, at least for me. Season 3 is definitely the weak point, but it still had its moments. When I first heard a “Mandalorian” movie was going to happen, my first thought was, “Okay. I don’t hate it.” Frankly, a “Mandalorian” movie is probably the safest film idea that Disney and Lucasfilm could have done. Many hardcore and casual viewers know and enjoy the show. It was a huge sell for Disney+ back when the first season came out. And speaking of selling, Grogu merch continues to sell like hotcakes.
Even with a season 3 that is clearly inferior from the others, I was still onboard to see more adventures with the titular characters.
Having now come out of the first “Star Wars” movie in almost six and a half years, I felt that I wanted more out of my experience.
This is a film that checks some boxes. It has action. It has adventure. It has the same feel as the TV show, but one could almost argue that this project feels more TV-like than movie-like. It is weird to say that, because when “The Mandalorian” came out, it felt more film-esque than it did a TV program in some ways. It had a scope aspect ratio. Heck, sometimes the aspect ratio would change to emphasize the feel of certain scenes. The CGI, while not as crisp as some of the movies, was very good. The worlds were oftentimes immersive, even with the Volume’s imperfections.
Now that this is turning into a movie, maybe we’d see the next step in technology to make it look as crisp as say “Rogue One.” In some ways, it is an incredibly immersive film. But sadly, not everyone is going to be able to experience it in the best way possible. My first viewing of this movie was at the AMC Lincoln Square IMAX in New York City. This is one of the largest screens in the entire world. They showed this movie through IMAX’s dual-laser 4K projection system, which is only in a handful of theaters. But everywhere I look, this is the big sell for the movie. Well, maybe aside from being in the “Star Wars” franchise… But I am seeing slogans like “Filmed for IMAX” and “Forged for IMAX” everywhere I go. Trailers, posters, standees, you name it. Do not get me wrong, I am a sucker for IMAX, so I was sold. Should you see this movie in IMAX? If it is still in an IMAX near you, yes. This movie has sequences that are shot for the IMAX format, including the rarely used 1.43:1 aspect ratio. But it is not going to erase the film’s imperfections. Some of the color grading looks abhorrent. There is this one sequence ingrained in my memory perhaps meant to emphasize how green one particular environment is, and it honestly looks like “The Matrix” had a baby with guacamole. It was kind of off-putting. There is no particular scene that wowed me in terms of its looks.
If anything, this movie reminds me a bit of “Star Wars: The Clone Wars.” Specifically, the 2008 movie. Funny enough, without giving much away, there is a callback to that movie that made me chuckle. Much like 2008’s “The Clone Wars,” “The Mandalorian and Grogu” has its moments that are not as cinematic as maybe they should be. This is partially evident in the story. The story does not quite have an identity. What is this movie actually about? Sure, it is about the titular characters, the Mandalorian and Grogu, but what are they doing exactly? What is their purpose? The movie suggests that the team must deal with a hutt, but it sometimes feels unfocused.
I have heard from others that this movie comes off as if it were an extended “Mandalorian” episode or multiple “Mandalorian” episodes combined into a two hour movie, and I see where they are coming from. I don’t mind the first comment, because if it were an extended episode, it would likely maintain focus and stick to one main idea. But it doesn’t. The film ends up feeling like a couple different episodes. These either resemble “Mandalorian” episodes that ended up getting rejected, or episodes that perhaps could have made for a small season or a half-season.
Pacing-wise, this film may be the worst I have experienced during a “Star Wars” installment. Again, with this coming off as several episodes in one piece, there are times where the film felt like it did not know when it wanted to end. I am not saying that I hated what happened in this movie. I was quite entertained through a good portion of it. But all of it probably would have been better if it were divided into bits and pieces. This movie, even though it does not span that much time, feels too heavy. I cannot recall a single moment during this film where I wanted to slap myself in the face or punch the screen or force choke myself to death. At the same time, I also cannot recall many instances where I wanted to jump for joy or cheer or go, “This is the way!” There are scenes where I kind of felt nothing, and that is shocking for a franchise whose original movies gave me a range of emotions from excitement to chills… Whose prequel movies sometimes made me cringe, but at other times made me drop my jaw at some of the lightsaber battles… Whose sequel movies had me locked into whatever the characters were going through such as Rey’s personal struggle of figuring out who she is, as well as Kylo Ren trying to live up to his grandfather, while also sometimes showing his humanity by destroying objects with his lightsaber whenever something goes wrong. This movie does not have any moment that made me go, “I’m going to remember that for as long as I live.” Instead, it is filled to the brim with moments that I passively glanced upon.
I think if you are a huge fan of “The Mandalorian” on TV, you might enjoy this movie. But even as I say that, I question my comment. While I am a fan of the show, I have to admit this movie did not quite do it for me. Is it horrible? No. It has some redeeming qualities, and one of those redeeming qualities is Ludwig Göransson’s score. …Sort of.
Of course, Goransson’s iconic theme music from the show is here and gets some extra pizazz on occasion. That said, I was not a fan of some of his new themes. There was one theme in particular that sounded like Hans Zimmer’s Electro theme from “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” became blood brothers with Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor’s headache-inducing “Challengers” score. Yes. I cannot stand the “Challengers” score. All film is subjective, and in the spirit of subjectivity, I believe that all the cinephiles that raved about that techno nightmare are entitled to their wrong opinions.
There is a particular piece of techno-style music in this film as well, which was not as headache-inducing as the “Challengers” score, but it felt very out of place with the environment. I questioned why it was even playing to begin with. That said, I did stay for the credits and I heard the theme play one more time. I would not say I warmed up to the piece, but it did sound better the second time around. Maybe it works in the right context, but for whatever reason, it does not work here. It was one of the few times I remember watching anything “Star Wars” and thinking the music doesn’t work. Sure, there are times where the music is forgettable, but even in those cases, they still match their scenes and movies overall. This is a massive and unfortunate exception to that idea.
If you are a newbie to the “Star Wars” franchise, I doubt “The Mandalorian and Grogu” is going to be the best entry point for you. Not necessarily because it piggybacks off of a streaming series. I don’t think you have to watch the “Mandalorian” show to understand every single thing that is going on in this film. However, this is not only one of the weaker films, at least in my opinion, but it also comes with very little substance. We do not really see Mando develop much as a character. He does not go through much noticeable change. He feels about as flat as this movie’s color palette. Now Grogu on the other hand is the most interesting of the titular characters. Since he can barely speak, it allows for more show than tell with his character. I found his challenges much more compelling, and as much as I do not want to judge a book by its cover, his challenges fit the “Mandalorian and Grogu” name. It shows how the two work as a team. At times this movie reminded me of those group projects in school, where one person ends up doing all the work. Grogu is that individual sometimes. There is one particular point in the story about two-thirds of the way through the movie that shows what Grogu is capable of.
Although this movie is rather predictable. Do not go in expecting the next “I am your father.” I have no problem with predictability if the story beats are handled decently. But they are not. They feel way too been there done that, not to mention done better. Say what you want about “The Last Jedi,” which I will remind you, is a film I did not like, but at least the film took risks. It came from the singular mind of Rian Johnson. I did not agree with all of his choices, but it felt like his movie for the most part. “The Mandalorian” feels more committee-esque, and I hate to say that because this film is done by a fabulous director. Jon Favreau has proven he can make great movies. “Iron Man,” “Chef,” “Elf,” and while I am not a huge fan of the Disney live-action remakes, I will defend “The Jungle Book.” That film is a technical marvel. I even liked the one “Mandalorian” episode he helmed. So, what happened here?
Admittedly, when it comes to certain technical choices, I think Favreau does a good job. If anything, it felt kind of video-game esque in the sense that we were closely watching characters behind their back in the third person perspective, or getting their view from a first-person perspective. There is a scene where Grogu is blazing through a city and the camera shows the world from his eyes. It was really cool to see it on a big IMAX screen in 1.43:1.
The action scenes are also well done. The opening 10 or 15 minutes are easily the best part of the film because while Mando does not develop much throughout the movie, the movie sets him up as this name that should be feared. Kind of like John Wick. It shows that through and through as he is taking down baddies left and right. While the Mandalorian never takes down a Stormtrooper with a pencil, this movie convinces me he could.
After those opening 10 to 15 minutes, we are introduced to Sigourney Weaver’s character, Ward, who does not really have much to do in the story other than to give Din orders and remind Grogu not to overeat. It is an easy paycheck for her. I do not hate the character, but I wish Weaver, who has built a legendary career in film, had more to do. Weaver’s basically the queen of sci-fi at this point between “Ghostbusters,” “Alien,” “Avatar,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “WALL-E…” Now that she is in “Star Wars,” I wish she had a character that were more memorable than the one we got. Aside from the recently mentioned “WALL-E,” as well as another Pixar feature, “Finding Dory,” the latter of which features Weaver voicing herself, this is probably the easiest money that the actress has made in her entire career.
Speaking of easy money, Martin Scorsese has a voiceover role in this movie as a shopkeep named Hugo. Was the name inspired by Scorsese’s own movie? You decide.
It is honestly hilarious to me that Martin Scorsese is in this movie. Not because I was under the impression that he would never work on a “Star Wars” movie. Weeks before checking out this film I watched an episode of “Light and Magic” on Disney+ and it reminded me of Scorsese’s friendship with George Lucas, but this film nevertheless reminds me of what I would imagine Scorsese thinks of Marvel movies.
“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” and keep in mind, I say this as a fan of the franchise, plays less like a movie and more like a crappy theme park ride. And if anything, the film is using the over the top IMAX plugs in the marketing almost as a way to compensate for its lack of quality in terms of the story. I did say it was cool to see this film in true digital IMAX, but I honestly think that is one of the only reasons this movie should be seen at all, regardless of watching it in a theater and at home. The IMAX enhanced ratio, as incredible as it looks, ultimately feels like a gimmick. I hate saying that, because much like the “Star Wars” franchise, I am also an IMAX fan. I have seen filmmakers like Ryan Coogler, Christopher Nolan, and Jordan Peele play with the coveted aspect ratio and utilize it well in their own productions. This is not Jon Favreau’s first time making something in 1.43:1. 2019’s “The Lion KIng” remake also had 1.43:1 scenes. But I cannot judge those scenes as I missed the film in theaters. The aspect ratio in a way makes up for every other technical aspect that does not work like the lighting, the color grading, as well as the sometimes flat framing.
Look… I am a “Star Wars” fan, so I will plead guilty to watching movies I did not enjoy as much as the others more than once. I have done this with some of the prequels, I have done this with “The Last Jedi.” And like those lesser titles, “The Mandalorian” has redeeming qualities in it. The only “Star Wars” film I have not seen multiple times to this day is “Solo.” If you ever read my review of it, you would know I gave it a 6/10, a barely positive score. At the time I thought it was the most middle of the road “Star Wars” movie ever. I think “Mandalorian and Grogu” gives it a run for its money. I bought tickets to a second screening for reasons beyond simply seeing the movie again, but if I were to buy tickets for this movie one time, and I did not have those tickets, it would be somewhat difficult for me to come up with a valid reason to spend money on this once more.
This is a movie that barely develops its core characters. I think it does a somewhat decent job on Grogu’s arc, but less so on Mando’s. Rotta the Hutt was fascinating at times as he tried to separate himself from his father, Jabba. But there are not many other characters who stood out. Say what you will about that one “Mandalorian” episode with Lizzo and Jack Black, at least it was weird. This movie does not really have a distinct feeling to it, other than blandness. Say what you want about the prequels. At least they had color! Say what you want about “The Rise of Skywalker,” at least it has me quoting “They fly now,” every once in a blue moon.
The more I think about “The Mandalorian and Grogu” the more I am going to think about it the same way others may think about “Star Wars: The Holiday Special.” This is a clear money grab that could best be described as content. It is not clear who this is for. Is this for grown adults who like watching bounty hunters double tap people like they’re pawns in a game of chess? Is it for young children or infants who like watching Grogu get into shenanigans? Is it for fans of the show who just want to see more episodes? As I ask all these questions, I continue to think to myself that maybe this movie is not for me, even if there, admittedly, doses of entertainment.
In the end, “The Mandalorian and Grogu” is by no means the best or worst “Star Wars” movie. It winds up somewhere in the middle. I have seen this movie twice now, and it is admittedly better the second time. The pacing problems still exist, but it did go by a little faster. Probably because I had a clearer concept of what to expect going in. If you enjoy “The Mandalorian” on Disney+, this will likely come off as a comforting return to a long lost home. But is it as good as the first, or even the second season? I don’t think so. I would rather watch all of those episodes again before putting on this movie.
Of all the “Star Wars” films I have seen, I think this one may have the least personality. The action, while good, is not as memorable as some of the other “Star Wars” titles. There are bits of humor, but the comedy does not land quite as well as other installments. The dialogue is not that memorable or quotable. Who knows how this project will age from here? That said, I am having trouble coming up with a reference I would use in a conversation with friends down the line. The movie bridges off of a show that already has three seasons, maintains a look and feel that is somewhat reminiscent of said show, and to my surprise, it sometimes looks cheaper than some of the show’s episodes. I did not hate this movie. It is entertaining, but not to the highest degree. I am going to give “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” a 5/10.
“Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Before we go any further, I would like to remind everyone that Scene Before’s original web series, Movie Requests, is going to feature five additional guests, on top of the 10 that have already been announced! I am not announcing their names at this time. But if you want a hint as to who these guests are, check out the poster above! While you are at it, please be sure to check out the latest episode of the series featuring “Clerks” star Brian O’Halloran. If you want to see more episodes as soon as they drop, you can watch them here on Flicknerd.com, but the fastest way to be notified about the episodes is to subscribe to my YouTube channel and hit the notification bell!
My next review is going to be for “I Love Boosters!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” 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 “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “The Mandalorian” TV show? What are your thoughts on it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Sheep Detectives” is directed by Kyle Balda (Minions, Despicable Me 3) and stars Hugh Jackman (X-Men, Real Steel), Nicholas Braun (Zola, Succession), Nicholas Galitzine (Red White & Royal Blue, Cinderella), Molly Gordon (Oh, Hi!, Shiva Baby), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, Onward), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Breaking Bad), Chris O’Dowd (Bridesmaids, The IT Crowd), Regina Hall (Little, Think Like a Man), Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: The Next Generation, American Dad!), Bella Ramsey (Game of Thrones, The Last of Us), Brett Goldstein (The Garfield Movie, Ted Lasso), Hong Chau (Downsizing, The Menu), and Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks, Sense and Sensibility). Based on Leonie Swann’s 2005 novel “Three Bags Full,” this film is about a flock of sheep who try to solve the murder of shepherd (Jackman).
“The Sheep Detectives” had me at Hugh Jackman. Then they showed what his character does, and I refused to miss this movie. That said, for those unfamiliar with the material, do not be fooled, Hugh Jackman’s involvement in “The Sheep Detectives” is minimal, and I knew that, but his presence left me with a solid first impression through what I thought would be a fun family film.
One pleasant surprise about this movie is that it was written by Craig Mazin, whose resume has been… Fascinating to say the least. While I am a little bitter that he is partially responsible for bringing both “Hangover” sequels to life, I will give him credit where it is due, as he is recognized for his success in recent years with HBO. Not only did he write the acclaimed mini-series “Chernobyl,” but he is also involved with “The Last of Us,” which has received rave reviews since its launch in 2023. Mazin knows his stuff.
“The Sheep Detectives” looked moderately funny and charming from the trailers. But color me amazed, because I adore this movie.
Amazon is on a roll right now movie-wise. After releasing “Project Hail Mary” last March, which stands as the best film I have watched in years, “The Sheep Detectives” comes in hot with an experience that is not quite as memorable as “Project Hail Mary,” but much like that movie, I was left with the urge to give this movie a second viewing sometime in the future. Upon watching it, I have talked with family members who heard about the film. One in particular thought it looked stupid. I frankly think they are underestimating what this film is capable of.
After seeing the asinine chore that is “Animal Farm,” it is so fulfilling to see a movie that has fantastic humor. Repeated gags that work and pay off. Memorable and sometimes unpredictable lines. A complete twist on “the chicken crossing the road.” This movie excels when it comes to comedy, and it is perfect for all ages.
“The Sheep Detectives” sort of plays like a more exaggerated Pixar movie. Saying that sounds ironic. After all, “The Sheep Detectives” is live-action, whereas Pixar specializes in animation. But some of the characters, and by that I mean human characters, come off like they belong in a cartoon. When you are making something in live-action, you can only heighten reality to a certain extent, but for whatever reason, this movie sticks the landing in that regard.
This is most evident when showcasing one of the film’s more notable supporting characters, Tim Derry (Nicholas Braun), a local policeman who might as well be this universe’s Jar Jar Binks. Although unlike Jar Jar Binks, I thought this character was well written and executed. Derry is not exactly the brightest of bulbs. But it does not mean he isn’t determined to get the job done. To say he is not good at his job is a bit of an exaggeration. In fact, going back to Pixar, his character almost reminds me of Linguini in “Ratatoullie,” who has no business working in his particular field, but allows unusual outside forces to help them improve at their job.
But it is not just the humans who fascinate throughout the movie. The sheep do their part to bring some solid characterization to the table. One of my favorites in the film is Sebastian (Bryan Cranston). The film takes time to unveil Sebastian’s backstory, where he spent time at a petting zoo. The backstory not only deepens the character, but delivers an emotional reaction. Cranston is not the only big name that makes up the film’s talented voice cast. Other actors include Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Patrick Stewart, Regina Hall, and Brett Goldstein. That last actor, by the way, voices two sheep, and they are responsible for one of the movie’s most memorable jokes.
This film also taps into how sheep interpret the afterlife, and the film gets creative with that idea. Sort of similar to how some people see themselves going to a better place when they die, the sheep believe that when one of their kind dies, they become a cloud. This is well explained during a giant rainstorm, when one of them says that the sheep are dancing when thunder sounds off.
The film does require a bit of suspension of disbelief. This should not be a surprise when the main characters include talking sheep, but the movie makes me believe in its rules and characters, even if they sometimes come off as unusual. The movie’s characters essentially go against mankind’s typical expectations of sheep. In fact, the characters even address how the “term” sheep is often used as a negative when used to describe certain people.
There are certain parts of this movie that I saw coming. However, I did not necessarily find myself peeved by this film’s occasional predictability. Just about every moment in this movie feels earned. By the time we get to the very end of this film, I felt satisfied with what it had to offer.
What is somewhat out of the ordinary regarding this film is its tone that could have easily clashed, but ends up working. This is a murder mystery, but beyond that, it is a movie about the beauty of life. It is about friendship, community, and appreciating what’s in front of you. The movie perfectly shifts its vibe when it needs to. At one point, it is mysterious and somewhat dark. At another, it is lighthearted and fun. Sometimes it successfully finds a middle ground.
I feel like I was one of the few people in the world who was genuinely looking forward to “The Sheep Detectives.” It is a premise that sounds silly, but I do not particularly mind silly as long as it works, and in this movie’s case, it ended up doing more than just working. I will be thinking about my experience watching this film for a long time. This film came out the same weekend as “Mortal Kombat II,” which I said I would watch again in my review. I would do the same for “The Sheep Detectives.” While I am eager to watch “Mortal Kombat II” by myself so I can laugh myself to death without sounding like a lunatic, “The Sheep Detectives” is a movie that I am just as hopeful to watch with somebody else just to see the look on their face once they realize what they are in for. Please watch this movie. Get some friends or loved ones to watch it with you. If you have kids, check this film out with them. It is a solid gateway murder mystery.
In the end, “The Sheep Detectives” is a stupendously satisfying and incredibly engaging film. Between this film and “Project Hail Mary,” I did not think Amazon would be cranking out the year’s two best pieces of cinema thus far, but here we are. While the film revolves around a murder, it is nevertheless delightfully wholesome. If Pixar started doing live action material, I would have been convinced this film had come from them. It feels like something in their DNA. This is a fantastic film for all ages. Give it a shot. It may surprise you. I am going to give “The Sheep Detectives” an 8/10.
“The Sheep Detectives” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, be sure to check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, the original web series dedicated to yours truly talking about movies recommended by some of your favorite stars. This newest episode features Brian O’Halloran, otherwise known as Dante from “Clerks.” I had a good time checking out his recommendation, “Patton.” Click the video above to see what I thought of it. Leave it a like if you enjoyed it!. And if you want to see more episodes as soon as they drop, be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel!
My next review is going to be for “In the Grey!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” “Backrooms,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Another World,” and “The Breadwinner.” Yep. That is a list of 7 movies. I clearly have time management skills. 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 Sheep Detectives?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you think is better than it deserves to be? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Animal Farm” is directed by Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Star Wars: The Force Awakens). He also stars in the film as a rooster named Randolph and has an uncredited role as Farmer Jones. Joining him in the cast is Seth Rogen (Sausage Party, Knocked Up), Gaten Matarazzo (Stranger Things, Honor Society), Steve Buscemi (Miracle Workers, Fargo), Glenn Close (The Wife, 101 Dalmatians), Laverne Cox (Doubt, Orange is the New Black), Kieran Culkin (A Real Pain, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Woody Harrelson (The Edge of Seventeen, The Glass Castle), Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory, Hidden Figures), Kathleen Turner (Romancing the Stone, The Virgin Suicides), and Iman Vellani (The Marvels, Ms. Marvel). This film is based on George Orwell’s book of the same name and is about a group of animals whose farm-based revolution results in a pig-led dictatorship.
There are a few major texts I was assigned to read in my English class during my freshman year of high school. One of those includes Homer’s “The Odyssey,” which is being adapted into a film coming out this summer. Another one happens to be George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” which is now an animated film directed by Andy Serkis. What’s next? Is “Of Mice and Men” getting another film adaptation?
Regardless, “Animal Farm,” through its book and interesting to say the least adaptations, left an impression on me. When the book was a major studying point in school, the class often focused on Orwell’s material linking to the U.S.S.R.. The book presents a fascinating allegory on the dangers of leaders becoming power hungry and bending the rules to their benefit.
The idea of someone like Andy Serkis taking on “Animal Farm” left me intrigued. He has shown his talents in the VFX and directing spaces, and I thought “Animal Farm” would be a fine fit for his skill set.
Then I saw the trailer…
While I thought the trailer overall made the film look cheap, it did end with one note that left me interested, which is that it was recommended for ages 11 and up. While the MPA gave this film a PG rating, which can be seen as okay for many younger audiences, the marketers essentially sent a message saying this might not be for the youngest crowds. Having read “Animal Farm,” that makes sense.
Frankly, after seeing this movie, I have no idea who exactly this is for. It is definitely not for “Animal Farm” purists, as there are some major changes made to the material. For instance, Old Major is not in the movie. There are some characters who are not in the book. No, unlike the 1999 adaptation, the main character is not a dog this time around.
Despite the movie being recommended for ages 11 and up as the trailer suggests, the film has plenty of jokes that feel like they were designed for the under five crowd. I do not know what George Orwell would think of this movie, seeing as he is no longer with us. But I think he and I would agree that toilet humor and “Animal Farm” do not mix. Maybe the conversation would be different if the trailer said the movie was recommended for “all ages,” However, that’s not the case. I would let it slide if this movie resorted to one fart joke, but I remember counting at least five or six instances of jokes related to bodily functions. It would also be forgiven if those jokes made me laugh. But they failed to do so.
This is not to say that I do not think younger viewers should not be exposed to a story like “Animal Farm.” I think it is an important tale, and the more that we experience corruption in power the more it is going to matter. In the case of “Animal Farm” 2026, this is a more modern telling of the tale compared to its mid-20th century source material, as it focuses on capitalism as the big bad. Despite happily living in the U.S. all my life, I think this idea has potential to work. One of the core antagonists of the film is a boss lady who essentially owns all the land in her sight, but she is not satisfied, as she wants to add Animal Farm to her collection.
In this film, Napoleon is played by Seth Rogen. …Okay? What is it with Seth Rogen’s voiceover roles lately? I always thought he was a weird choice for Donkey Kong, but this is another level. And much like Donkey Kong, Seth Rogen often sounds like he is playing himself when sounding off every other line. In fact, one could argue the performance is kind of meta, as there is a scene where Napoleon does the infamous Seth Rogen laugh, and he follows that up with “please do not make fun of my laugh.” Is it just me, or is Seth Rogen’s laugh one of the most recognizable laughs of all time? If I had to make a top 5 list in that regard, Rogen would be up there with Jimmy Carr, SpongeBob SquarePants, Peter Griffin, and J. Jonah Jameson during that one scene from “Spider-Man 2” where Peter asks him if he can get paid in advance.
That said, there is something there with Seth Rogen’s material. As immature as the writing often sounds, there is one scene between his character and a gender-swapped Snowball (Laverne Cox) where the latter is explaining her plan concerning the farm that stood out to me. Every other second, Napoleon, who is not afraid to showcase his opposition to the plan, is constantly mocking Snowball, sometimes calling her boring while they are in front of a large crowd. Again, the material itself comes off as borderline cringeworthy, but the more I think about it, the more it reminds me of the current state of politics in the U.S.. I try to keep my mouth shut in regards to that topic on here, but Napoleon is essentially Donald Trump. He is loud and quite limited in his vocabulary. He calls others names to their faces. And as we have seen in the 2016 and 2024 elections, his biggest rivals tend to be, whether you agree with their policies or not, well-meaning women.
Although there is one woman that Napoleon tends to get along with, and that is the recently mentioned “boss lady,” Frieda Pilkington (Glenn Close). A billionaire who essentially wants everything and will stop at nothing to get it. She owns a giant company that I would perhaps sum up as this universe’s equivalent to Amazon, as it seems to have their fingertips in just about every industry. Her character is by no means broken, but her one-dimensionality definitely stands out.
In fact, this movie is chock-full of big stars. From Jim Parsons to Kieran Culkin to Steve Buscemi. One rising star who I am glad to see in this film is Iman Vellani, who I adore as Ms. Marvel in the MCU. Her roles, and yes, she has more than one, does not give her as much to work with compared to Marvel, but I am glad to see she is getting more work.
Another standout in this film is Woody Harrelson as Boxer. While the film does have its many differences from the source material, the way Boxer was written and executed feels similar to how I would have imagined reading the book as a teenager. Harrelson is a good pick for the role. It is hard to say that “Animal Farm” is one of the most heartfelt films ever made, but I would not deny that Boxer is perhaps the emotional core of the story, even if he is a supporting character.
While this is based on a famous text, “Animal Farm” is not the best when it comes to screenwriting. By the way, it is written by Nicholas Stoller, whose “Muppets” films I did enjoy, but I will also acknowledge his resume also contains duds like “Sex Tape,” “Dora and the Lost City of Gold,” and “Zoolander 2.” Despite Stoller’s best efforts, the jokes do not work. I do not mind “Animal Farm” having jokes, as long as they stick the landing. They did not. Some of the jokes play a part in the film’s clashing tones. At times this film tries to be ridiculous and go for a laugh, and at others it tries to pull the heartstrings or make you shed a tear. Pixar has proven that their films can both be funny and emotional. “Animal Farm,” which is a collaboration between Aniventure and The Imaginarium, tends to fall flat in both categories. The end of the film feels kind of like a Marvel movie, almost as if the climax is aiming too high.
I have nothing against people making changes to source material. I think “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is one of the greatest movies of all time, even if it made some significant alterations from Roald Dahl’s classic tale. This adaptation of “Animal Farm,” like the others that have been brought to the screen, has its differences from the book. Although I went back to watch the other two adaptations and those tended to maintain the tone and spirit that the book was going for. Neither one was particularly groundbreaking or IMDb top 250-worthy, but they did their job in more ways than one. This movie does not feel like “Animal Farm” in the most accurate sense. That would be fine if I liked the movie, but between the bad comedy, several characters lacking dimension, weird editing choices, and some scenes feeling rushed, “Animal Farm” reminded me that not all movies are equal. Some are just plain bad.
In the end, “Animal Farm” is not as bad as I hear other people claim it to be, but to call it good is definitely a stretch. There are parts of the movie that exceeded my expectations, and I am probably being generous with that statement. While I definitely found Rogen’s interpretation of Napoleon to be rather annoying, I do think the way he was written worked in terms of matching the current political climate. He is not the smartest, nor the most calculated leader. But if you ask certain people today what they think about the current U.S. President, they would probably say the same thing. The animation was passable, but not exactly revolutionary. The soundtrack of this film is also kind of weird. Including a rap version of “Old McDonald Had a Farm” is most certainly a choice. The book is definitely more serious than this movie, and I thought when this film tried to be funny, it did not always work. Although there was one gag involving E=mc² that did make me chuckle. This is probably not going to be my least favorite movie of the year as there are glimmers of positivity to be found, but I hope to see a superior version of this tale brought to the big screen one day. I am going to give “Animal Farm” a 4/10.
“Animal Farm” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! I am happy to announce that the next guest in my ongoing web series, Movie Requests is none other than Brian O’Halloran! You may know him from several of Kevin Smith’s films, including the “Clerks” trilogy! By the way, he is not the first guy from said trilogy I featured in the series, as a couple months ago I took a request from Jason Mewes, AKA Jay of the Jay and Silent Bob duo. As for Brian’s request, that review will be available on Sunday June 7th! You can check it out here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want the fastest method of watching the review, do yourself and I favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!
My next review is going to be for “Mortal Kombat II!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Sheep Detectives,” “In the Grey, “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” and “Backrooms.” If you want to see these review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Animal Farm?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the “Animal Farm” book? What are your thoughts on it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” is directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic, and co-directed by Pierre Leduc, all of whom helmed 2023’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” This film stars Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy, The LEGO Movie), Anya Taylor-Joy (Emma., The Northman), Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Fist Fight), Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, A Minecraft Movie), Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Key and Peele), Benny Safdie (Happy Gilmore 2, Uncut Gems), Donald Glover (Atlanta, Solo: A Star Wars Story), and Brie Larson (Captain Marvel, The Glass Castle). This film follows Mario as he ventures through space, facing new challenges and enemies along the way.
“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is the very definition of “acceptable.” By no means am I ever going to watch the movie again, unless I one day have kids and we end up watching it together or something. This is a movie that, if I were to have children, I would not be mad at them for watching, but it is far from the greatest family film ever made. My biggest problem with “The Super Mario Brothers Movie” is that just about everything about it screams “cliche.” There is nothing in it that I felt like I have not seen in other movies over the years.
The banality of “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” frankly soured my expectations for what would be known as “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” I hate to say this, as I love the “Mario” games. I grew up playing them as a child and I continue to enjoy them to this day. Of all the “Mario” games I played, the original “Super Mario Galaxy” just so happens to be my favorite due to its unique style, immersive gameplay, epic orchestral score, and clever worlds. I was definitely curious to see how Illumination would adapt my favorite game in the franchise, but I also tempered my expectations. The marketing was nowhere near perfect, but had its moments.
Now that the movie is here, I can very much say it reminded me of the last one.
In some ways, this can be seen as a positive because it means that the movie is on brand. If you liked “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” then there is probably a decent chance you will enjoy “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” Only thing, I barely enjoyed “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” so it should not be a surprise that I happen to find my experience watching its sequel to be just as middle of the road.
The movie is not all bad. The biggest boast it carries happens to be the visuals. While I am not the biggest fan of Illumination, I cannot say their attention to detail when it comes to animation has ever let me down. Even if the content within said details happens to be incredibly brain-numbing. The film is colorful, polished, and for the most part, faithful to Nintendo’s games. If I were to watch this film with the sound off, it would be an “A.”
That said, I watched this film in IMAX, so the audio was not only on, but quite loud. That is another aspect that “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” often nails through faithful sound effects and score that do a great job at bringing some of the game’s greatest hits to cinema. Brian Tyler, much like the last film, does an excellent job composing the music.
But unlike a galaxy, the positives of “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” can only reach so far. This film has a problem some other video game-based films run into. The characters and story feel rather thin. I was not exactly fond of how the previous movie decided to have its characters follow the most basic story structure imaginable, but at least it had a story. To say that “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” does not have a story would be a lie. But to suggest it has a coherent story is also a stretch.
The movie is paced like a TikTok video. The film is designed to give as much information as possible in as little time imaginable. Do not get me wrong. I like a good, fast-paced flick. And like a lot of fast-paced flicks, the film packs in a couple decent action sequences. The first encounter between the Mario brothers and Bowser Jr. is quite entertaining, well choreographed, and has a rather cool use of slow motion. Though sometimes the film goes so fast that it is not always easy to digest the information that is in front of you.
At times, the movie is so focused on shoving as much as it can into its 98 minute runtime to the point where not all of it feels like it matters or comes off as substantial. “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” has some good ideas. But those good ideas did not receive the best execution.
Watching “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” is the equivalent of putting on Twitch and watching someone speedrun a “Mario” game. The only difference is that this cinematic experience does not come with a fun on-camera personality who feels like your pal from afar. The film is too fast and it almost made me furious.
Speaking of personalities, Chris Pratt is, unfortunately, back as the voice of Mario (right). I am still not accustomed to his voice. I honestly bought into his performance a bit more in his first go. Chris Pratt has proven to be a halfway decent voiceover artist through his performance in “The LEGO Movie.” Sadly, “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” does not live up to that. A lot of his lines feel flat and lifeless, especially compared to most of the other cast members. His presence feels nowhere near as animated as anyone else in the film. Charlie Day is often expressive and hyperactive as Luigi (left). Jack Black is over the top and loud as Bowser. Benny Safdie has such a psychopathic presence as Bowser Jr.. Brie Larson is incredibly inviting as Rosalina. Chris Pratt at times sounds like he is in a different movie than his castmates.
I have no idea how many of you are going to consider this a spoiler, but if you have missed out on the posters for this movie, then you might want to log off this post, as there is a potential detail afoot that could be described as a spoiler. You have been warned.
Not good enough? Okay. Here is a countdown.
3…
2…
1…
Going once…
Going twice…
Going thrice…
If you are still reading this and have not seen the movie…
You are wasting your time…
You have been warned…
You have been double warned…
Fox McCloud is in this movie.
Glen Powell voices the main character of the “Star Fox” franchise, and he does a pretty good job. I thought the idea of including him in a film where Mario goes to space makes sense. But he felt very minimal in the movie’s overall impact. Sure, he had a place in the story, but barely. He comes off more as an excuse to cater to a certain branch of gamers rather than to be of service to the story. In fact, I will not drop spoilers, but Fox is not the only non-Mario Nintendo character we see in this film. Does this mean we are getting a “Super Smash Bros.” movie anytime soon? Frankly, based on what they do with one or two of these characters, I am thinking the chances of getting that movie is highly unlikely. As a fan of those games, I am a bit disappointed. But as someone who thinks these past two “Mario” movies have been average, I think this might be for the best that way I do not end up underwhelmed with what a “Smash” movie could be.
Not to sound like a politician, but despite the movie’s faults, I felt at times it had “concepts of a plan.” In terms of characterization, the movie does not do the best job at developing the cast. If anything, I think of all the characters, Peach ends up going through the most change through her relationship with Mario and what we see through her backstory and how it plays into rest of the film. Also, I do like seeing Bowser reconnect with his son after some time apart. The two may be bad, but watching their relationship is quite good. Their connection also inspires my favorite conversation in the movie, which features the line, “Nothing’s more dangerous than a friend. When your armor’s down, they’ll stab you in the back.”
Some of you might defend “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” for not having the best story, possibly because not all the video games have much of a story. That is technically true. As much as I love “Mario Kart World,” I cannot say I am playing the game for the plot. I am playing the game to take down opponents with banana peels. The inspiration behind this movie, “Super Mario Galaxy,” may not have the deepest plot, but it introduces an interesting character in Rosalina while delivering mind-blowing gameplay. And that is the key word. GAMEplay. Keep in mind, this picture is called “The Super Mario Galaxy MOVIE.” The “Mario” games fall within a play-based medium. Even if the story is minimal, the game can still be fun as long as the gameplay works. When you are making a movie, the story becomes more important. But when you have a team that is more concerned about finding an excuse to randomly show off Toad in a penguin suit or build a security system with a presentation modeled after the art style of the “Super Mario Bros.” NES game, it gives me the impression that story is not a top priority. If anything it comes off as a commercial for the games. I am not saying a movie cannot also be a good commercial. Go watch “The LEGO Movie.” Sure, it is based on LEGO blocks, but the movie uses that concept and, no pun intended, builds a good story around it.
Also, if this movie were a commercial for the “Mario Galaxy” games specifically, it almost feels like false advertising, as we do not often see Mario in space. Not long after those stories begin, Mario ends up in space and stays there for the entire story. Sure, we see Mario venturing off into space at a certain point of the movie, but a surprising amount of Mario’s journey is spent closer to home, around the Mushroom Kingdom. I hate to be the guy who judges a book by its cover, but I would be fine if the crew called this film “The Super Mario Bros. Movie 2,” even if it is a bit of a mouthful. It probably would have lessened my complaint even by the tiniest amount.
But there is one positive note worth mentioning. This movie, like its predecessor, is more enjoyable than “Super Mario Brothers” from 1993. Yet if I were to go into the woods and film a Mario action figure jumping on mushrooms for a couple hours, that would also be more tolerable to watch than 1993’s “Super Mario Brothers.”
In the end, it is weird to say, but somehow prefer “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” over “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” I mean, it is almost guaranteed that putting something in space sounds cool, but even so, this sequel feels like more of the same. More references. More cookie cutter backstories and characterization. More TikTok-like scenes. The movie looks pretty and if I were in charge of a Best Buy, chances are I would consider using “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” as a demo on a big screen TV because some of the scenes are simply that easy on the eyes. But I can guarantee you I have no plans to watch this movie again. The “Mario” games have replay value. The amount of times I turned on “Mario Kart World” in the past year has to be somewhere in the double digits at minimum. I cannot say I am going to have the same attachment to “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” down the road. There are elements that work. Bowser Jr. is kind of fun. Donald Glover was a fine pick to play Yoshi. And the music is quite good, regardless of whether or not it is based on something that I have heard before. Each tune plays its part well. That said, it is not enough to make this movie worth my time past the initial viewing. I am going to give “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” a 5/10.
“The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you have not done so already, please check out the latest episode of Scene Before’s original video series, Movie Requests. This latest episode features “Avatar” actor Joel David Moore, who requested I should watch “Force Majeure.” My thoughts can be summed up in the video above! And if you would like to see more episodes, do me and yourself a favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!
My next review is going to be for “The Drama!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Exit 8,” “Normal,” “Lorne,” and “Michael.” 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 Super Mario Galaxy Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, what do you believe is the superior film? “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” or “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Hoppers” is directed by Daniel Chong (We Bare Bears, We Baby Bears) and stars Piper Curda (A.N.T. Farm, Teen Beach 2), Bobby Moynihan (Saturday Night Live, The Secret Life of Pets), Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Keeping Up with the Joneses), Kathy Najimy (King of the Hill, WALL-E), and Dave Franco (Together, The Disaster Artist). This film is about a young girl named Mabel who uses a new technology to allow her consciousness to hop into a robotic beaver. Despite discouragement from those working on the tech, Mabel uses her newfound beaverhood as an opportunity to save a glade from being replaced by a freeway.
You ever hear the saying “Just another Tuesday?” Well, that phrase applies to Pixar. Specifically, when it comes to describing their ability to pump out one solid movie after another. Not every one is perfect, but the studio has unleashed a ton of hits over the years, including a couple all-timers like “The Incredibles” or “Inside Out.”
Watching a new Pixar movie always feels like an event, because while they are not the only group dedicated to making animations, I always see Pixar as the gold standard. It has come to the point where I find inferior Pixar projects to be better than most movies. Do I think “Elio” is a masterpiece? No. But did I enjoy it and take something from it? Absolutely. Even with “Elemental” turning out to be lackluster, I continue to find myself onboard Pixar’s train for whatever they have in store.
As much as I look forward to seeing what Pixar brings to the table with franchise extensions including “Toy Story 5” and “Incredibles 3,” I am often more engaged when I find out about one of their original projects, including “Hoppers.” That said, while the movie did look fun and hilarious based on what I saw in the marketing, I will admit that the movie did turn me off slightly even while watching the trailers, as they admit how much their concept sounds like “Avatar.” Although in fairness, if you break down “Avatar,” it has ripped off quite a few other films like “Pocahontas” and “Dances with Wolves.”
Despite the film’s self-admitted ripping off of sorts, there is plenty in it to enjoy. In fact, I think it is just about as enjoyable as the first “Avatar.” Much like how I think “Avatar” is not James Cameron’s best work, I would have to say the same is true for “Hoppers.” Nevertheless, both movies are worth watching. These two stories just so happen to play around with similar ideas beyond just having someone take on the form of another living thing. They both highlight how humanity tends to mistreat other creatures, intentionally or not. “Hoppers” also taps into the idea that humans often fail to realize that they are not the center of the universe. As humans we are taught to appreciate nature, but in the past couple hundred years we have become so reliant on convenience and industrialization to the point that we forget to care for other animals.
I saw this film with a couple friends, and one of those friends said this film is Pixar’s closest cousin to “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.” I would partially agree with them as, like that film when put next to others in its franchise, is not exactly the best one. But also, like “Temple of Doom,” there are some surprisingly dark moments. There is a particular death that comes in this film. Wow. Characters die in a movie. What a spoiler. But without specifying, there is one death involving a clap that caught me by total surprise. You will know it when you see it. If you saw the trailer, you would know that a good chunk of the movie is dedicated to other creatures trying to “squish” humans for everything they have done. That said, the trailers make this film look totally lighthearted. It was a bit darker than I anticipated. There are some segments involving the animals’ aspirations that lead to some eerie visuals or concepts. I do not want to spoil much, but the end of the movie has some “facial expressions” if you will, that I cannot stop thinking about.
Speaking of things I cannot stop thinking about, I like the film’s protagonist, Mabel. She comes off as smart, though a bit rebellious. Yet she is not necessarily pushy. The movie does a great job at creating someone whose passion for nature is as strong as her desire to preserve it. While this film is not as emotionally charging, there are some sentimental moments between Mabel and her Grandma Tanaka that felt reminiscent of watching earlier moments of “Up.” Much like that Pixar classic, “Hoppers” works so well because not only is Mabel doing what she’s doing for herself, she is thinking of the people in her life each step of the way. She is an individual who clearly wants something to go her way, but oftentimes cares enough about others during her journey to see said thing play out.
Story-wise, this film reminds me of a lot of other movies, including some of Pixar’s own like “Up,” “Ratatoullie,” or “A Bug’s Life.” This film is not exactly the same as all of these, but it borrows a lot of elements from their stories like large insect casts, the “humans are dangerous” cliche, or the general appreciation of nature. “Hoppers” is far from Pixar’s best film. To me, it is mid-tier Pixar, which is still better than a lot of movies. I would probably put it in the same boat as “Onward” or “Inside Out 2.” Yet “Hoppers” borrows a lot of traits from some of Pixar’s most memorable stories and creates a fun remix out of them.
In some ways, I think you would be forgiven if “Hoppers” also reminded you of a recent DreamWorks film, specifically “The Wild Robot.” For one thing, both films, on a technicality, primarily feature “robots” as their main characters. These “robots” if you will, are their respective universe’s fish out of water. Both Roz and Mabel have to adapt to the ways of the wild. They take on completely different adventures and carry completely different motivations, but on the surface, both films would seem like distinct cousins if watched back to back. This is especially true when you consider both films suggest that humans the reason why the world is changing for the worse.
Overall, “Hoppers” is a hoot. It is quite funny, wonderfully ridiculous, and like a lot of other Pixar fare, beautifully animated. The studio has only gotten better at making their films look as crisp as can be through the years and “Hoppers” is just the latest example.
In the end, I recommend “Hoppers.” This is not going to end up being my favorite film of the year, but it is one that I think is fun for all ages. It does get a bit dark, but it is not the first film of its kind to do so. The mostly star-studded voice cast brings their A-game. The story is a lot of fun, but also important. For the younger viewers, the film offers positive lessons about environmental preservation and not messing with nature. The film is fast-paced, never boring, and an overall good time. I am going to give “Hoppers” a 7/10.
“Hoppers” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, I have more coming including for “Project Hail Mary,” “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come,” “They Will Kill You,” “You’re Dating a Narcissist!,” and “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.”
Also, if you have not done so already, please check out my latest episode of Movie Requests featuring special guest Jason Mewes, who asked me to review “House Party.” If you enjoy the episode, leave a like on YouTube, and subscribe to my channel so you can stay tuned for more episodes as they drop!
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 “Hoppers?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could experience life as another living creature? What would it be and why? For me, I would pick a mayfly. Their lives are short, but they sound interesting, as they only tend to live one or two days as soon as they become adults. Let me know which creature you’d want to be down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“GOAT” is directed by Tyree Dillihay (Bob’s Burgers, Good Times) and Adam Rosette (Harvey Girls Forever!, The Mr. Peabody and Sherman Show) and stars Caleb McLaughlin (Stranger Things, The Book of Clarence), Gabrielle Union (Think Like a Man, Bring it On), Aaron Pierre (Mufasa: The Lion King, Krypton), Nicola Coughlin (Derry Girls, Bridgerton), David Harbour (Stranger Things, Black Widow), Nick Kroll (Big Mouth, Sausage Party), Jenifer Lewis (Think Like a Man, Black-ish), Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, Young Adult), Jelly Roll, Jennifer Hudson (The Jennifer Hudson Show, Dreamgirls), Sherry Cola (Joy Ride, Shortcomings), Eduardo Franco (Stranger Things, Booksmith), Andrew Santino (The Disaster Artist, Mixology), Bobby Lee (Inside Job, Kickin’ It Old School), and Stephen Curry (Holey Moley, Mr. Throwback). This film is about a goat named Will Harris who gets the unique opportunity to follow his dreams and play roarball with much bigger, stronger, and faster animals.
When I think of the gold standard of animation, my mind tends to dart towards Pixar. As for Sony Pictures Animation’s place in this medium, I am kind of iffy about them. As much as the “Spider-Verse” movies are masterpieces, they also come from the studio that is responsible for “The Emoji Movie,” one of the most unforgivable abominations made by man. The quality is not the most consistent from one project to the next.
I was not exactly sure what to expect with “GOAT.” I had some idea, but not quite a full picture. The film certainly looked like it took some inspiration from “Spider-Verse’s” fast-paced animation style while also finding a way to bring its own personality to the table. That said, from what I saw through the marketing, this film looked cliche in more ways than one. Having seen the movie, I can definitely say it is cliche. Depending on how many movies you have seen, some of this film’s structure is going to feel quite familiar to you. A protagonist wants to be the best at something despite what the odds suggest and what other people have to say. I have said on this blog that cliches are fine as long as a project can effectively utilize them. Having made that point, I wish “GOAT” was a better movie.
This is not to say the movie is the worst I have ever seen. In fact, when it comes to establishing characters like the scrawny Will Harris (McLaughlin) and his much stronger mentor figure Jett Fillmore (Union). The movie takes time to give them a splendid dynamic that plays out perfectly on and off the court. Their connection unleashes some cliches, but they are, again, cliches that are handled decently. You have the young, eager student willing to learn from a wiser figure who is supposedly becoming more washed-up with each passing minute. It is a traditional storytelling method, but it works.
“GOAT” is very much a product of the 2020s. In some ways, it does a good job at shining a light on people’s weaknesses and problems that define the decade. There is one gag in the film involving a character who is way too attached to their phone. I could see a joke like this playing well with parents in the audience. That said, at my screening, the person next to me, who happened to be an adult, was on their phone numerous times. I wonder how they took this lesson.
By the way, if this has not been made clear already, please put your phone away at the movies. That said, I understand not everyone carries a watch nowadays, so I have no problem if you want to check the time as long as you do not go any further to wreck my time. Turn the brightness down. Peek in your pocket. Don’t flash it heavily for everyone to see! You got it? Good. Let’s move on.
While the movie positively defines the 2020s in some ways, it also manages to define it in less stellar ways. One of my biggest problems with this film is the pacing. Granted, the movie is all killer, no filler. It dives into each and every point without skipping a beat. But for a movie that is about basketball, part of me wishes I could have seen more of it. Thankfully, unlike another so-called sports movie that goes by the name of “Him,” which I reviewed last year, “GOAT” actually dedicates a lot of time to its focal sport. That said, part of me wishes we could have spent a little extra time on the games. I am not saying that we need to see all 48 minutes of the film’s players running up and down the court, but by the time the film gets to the big game at the end, it feels much smaller in scale than it should be. It feels rushed. It feels like it wants to end before it starts. The film literally breezes through its first couple of quarters of the climactic game in about as much time as it would take me to swipe through a few YouTube shorts. There are some occasionally thrilling moments in these games, but they would probably be more exciting if the movie drew things out. “GOAT” tells a lot in a 100 minutes. I just wish I had the chance to digest the material a little more.
One reason why I tend to favor stories told by studios like Pixar is that unlike Sony, their films feel a lot less commercialized. Sure, “Toy Story” uses a lot of real life toys, “Cars” uses real life vehicles, and “Wall-E” has ties to “Hello, Dolly” and Apple. Yet those projects feel like stories rather than extended advertisements. Even in some of Sony’s better animated productions, I always notice they find a way to sneak in a commercial for one of their products. When it comes to product placement, “GOAT” is utterly shameless. The movie spends quite a bit of time showing off the PS5, creates its own 2K sports games based on roarball, makes the card game Uno a core concept of the plot, and even spends quite a bit of time featuring Doordash.
Just because this movie feels commercialized, does not mean it lacks creativity. Instead of basketball, the movie features the sport of roarball. Like basketball, it features players going up and down a court trying to put a ball through a hoop. The two sports have their differences. We do not see humans playing roarball and rather tons of different animals taking up the sport. The universe within “GOAT” seems to have a similar layout to “Zootopia” as there are no humans.
But above all, I find the roarball courts to be more interesting than anything else the sport has to offer. If you ever go to an NBA game, you would notice that each arena has its own individual quirks and home teams, but each court follows a similar structure to the next. The courts that we see through this film’s professional league sort of play like a video game. There are moments where characters have to make their way through rising surfaces, ice, fire, and so on. Honestly, if Nintendo wants to make a “Mario Basketball” game sometime soon, I think this movie would be a solid piece of inspiration.
In the end, “GOAT” is not the greatest flick. It has glimmers of goodness. Although those glimmers are rather thin. The voice cast is pretty talented and bring a lot to the table. Despite clearly being similar to basketball, the concept of roarball has sparks of creativity. While there are a couple decent moments, most of the scenes in this film feel so rushed to the point where I cannot fully appreciate the characters within them. Also, the product placement feels kind of over the top, especially considering this film is animated. As someone who is in his 20s, I sometimes think about what would happen if I had kids and I took them this movie. I think they would have a fun time with it, and for all I know it could age somewhat decently for them, but I do not know if it is going to age like a fine wine. Time will tell. As for this 26 year old loser, I think “GOAT” is a one and done for me. I am going to give “GOAT a 5/10.
“GOAT” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Send Help” and “The Bride!”. Also, this is my first film review I have published since Scene Before officially turned 10 years old. I want to thank everyone who has wasted their time reading my above average material over the past ten years.
If you want to see a video-based film review I have done, check out the first episode of Movie Requests, where I discuss Lars von Trier’s film “The Idiots,” as requested by actress Bryce Dallas Howard. It is available now on my YouTube channel, and you should absolutely positively subscribe!
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 “GOAT?” What did you think about it? Or, what an animated sports film you enjoy? Sticking with the topic of basketball, you should totally check out my review for “The First Slam Dunk.” It is a great movie, give it a watch. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Wicked: For Good” is directed by Jon M. Chu, who also directed the prior “Wicked” installment. This film stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Jurassic World: Rebirth, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater (Lost on a Mountain in Maine, Gen V), Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Independence Day). This film is the second in a two-part adaptation of the “Wicked” musical, which itself is based on a book of the same name. In this story, we see our main characters from the first film return as they embrace their identities of Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good.
If you read my review for “Wicked” over the past year, you would notice that I have not offered the fondest of opinions regarding the film. While I acknowledge the film is by no means broken, I found it to be mostly slow. I thought a lot of the musical numbers were not doing it for me. And I thought some of the film’s technical aspects such as the color grading needed improvement. That said, I know that movie has its fans. I will even say there are things I liked about it. While most of the music failed to impress me, signature songs like “Popular” and “Flying Gravity” were well executed. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are excellent as the main duo. And even though I thought the film could have been more aesthetically pleasing in certain regards, I was impressed by the production design.
I was quite nervous for this sequel, because I acknowledge that I probably pooped on a lot of people’s parties when it comes to my opinion on the first film. A lot of people I know really dug it. Those people were also looking forward to this one. The film was a shining star over the past awards season, but I wish I aligned with those who praised it. Given how I am a Movie Reviewing Moron of the people, I used one of my A-List reservations to see this film opening weekend.
Having now seen the film, I cannot say “Wicked: For Good” surprised me in any way. I expected to not like the film, and that is exactly what happened. Of course, I go into every movie wanting it to be good. But in the case of “Wicked: For Good,” it did not do it for me.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of positives in “Wicked: For Good.” Many of the things that I found to work in the first film also work here. Then again, this should not be a big surprise given how both titles were shot back to back. That said, much like the original film, the sequel wowed in terms of its production design. Oz feels just as grand as I recall it feeling a year ago. I thought the music was great, and in some ways, it was an improvement over the first part. There were bits of the first film where it felt like the characters were singing almost unnecessarily. In this sequel, every song seemed to have a purpose. They either fit the moment or enhanced a character’s arc. During my review for the first film, I pointed out that the music became so loud at my screening to the point where I almost had a headache. At the risk of torturing myself, I ended up seeing “Wicked: For Good” at the exact same theater and auditorium, which is a Dolby Cinema at an AMC location. I do not know if they turned the volume down in that theater, but I found the soundtrack much more comfortable to listen to than the one from the original. Speaking of sound, the sound editing was top notch. For example, I like the attention to detail the movie gives whenever Glinda is in her bubble. You can hear a little blockage coming through whenever she talks because the camera’s point of view is from the outside of the vehicle.
Another point of praise I would have to give is that most of the cast does a good job with the material they are given. Of course, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, who had dynamite chemistry in the first film, work well together this time around, that is during whichever moments allow the two to be on screen together.
I am not going to pretend that I found the first film’s screenplay to be phenomenal, but there was at least a novelty to it even though it was based on both a play and a book. This film’s script is consistent with the first film in certain ways. Therefore, like the first film, I found a lot of the fantastical vocabulary to be rather annoying. I get that this film is not directly set on earth, but a lot of the diction dropped by select characters including “thrillifying,” “obsessulated,” and most especially “clock tick” felt too over the top. Every time a character in this film said the words “clock tick,” it felt tacked on. It did not feel authentic, even for Oz. It came off as a fantasy version of “Mean Girls” where instead of people trying make fetch happen, they were trying to make “clock tick” happen.
When I reviewed “Wicked” last year, I pointed out that there was a pink and green tint attached in my presentation. That was not the case this time. I can only make an assumption, but maybe the projector had a filter that should have been removed. I do not know if it was a 3D filter because the screen did not look that dark. Point is, the screen looked normal during “Wicked: For Good.” Shoutout to the staff at the AMC Liberty Tree Mall 20 for the upkeep. I found “Wicked: For Good” to look much better than the original “Wicked” did during my initial watch. The sequel’s viewing experience fully allowed me to see the film the way Jon M. Chu intended. Sadly, I do not know if his vision satisfied me all that much. “Wicked: For Good,” like its predecessor, feels lacking in color. Again, the set design is great. I will even say a quite a bit of the framing is pretty good. But I think the color grading could have been pinched up a little bit, and a lot of the shots seem to lack personality. I hate saying this, because I have a soft spot for these movies, but these “Wicked” films look like select MCU films. They look slapped together and almost done on the fly. Like the original, “Wicked: For Good” has some decent shots, but it is also packed with a lot of shots that look gray, digital, and lifeless.
Overall, I found this film to engage me more than the original did. That said, this film will definitely be enhanced by watching the original, as much as I do not recommend doing so. I found “For Good” to start off with a bang. It quickly establishes the Wicked Witch as a threat amongst Oz, or at least a threat in people’s minds. That said, despite establishing Elphaba as a threat to Oz’s population, I can say that this film feels uneventful by the conclusion. Does this film have a beginning, middle, and end? Yes. But by the time the film is over, I had little attachment to any of the characters. Not Elphaba. Not Glinda. Not a single soul in the cast. This is a film that is supposed to cap off the story and instead of going out with an emotional bang, it closes things off with a dull whimper. I get that “Wicked” in essence paints the story told in “The Wizard of Oz” as an anti-Elphaba propaganda piece, but the way that the film showcases some of the events from “The Wizard of Oz” lacks something the classic tale had. Sure, “The Wizard of Oz” is a formulaic hero’s journey, but like a lot of formulaic hero’s journeys, it had stakes. As I watched parts of “Wicked: For Good,” I almost did not care about a single character in the cast. The film barely paints the Wizard as a threat, even if Elphaba most definitely sees him that way. The closest thing to an unforgivable act I can say he pulled off is him capturing a bunch of animals, which, okay, that is not something reasonable people do. Not to mention, such an action piggybacks off of material from the first film. But even that plot point feels like it barely gets any spotlight. It comes off as an afterthought.
Do things happen in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. Do characters develop in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. We see some characters change more than others, but there is some character development to be had. That said, by the film’s conclusion, I felt like nothing really mattered that much. There was not much in the film that left a significant impact on me.
There is quite a bit in this film that I do not like. I did say there are plenty of positives, but I utter such a sentiment with as much generosity as I can provide. That said, if there is one reason why you should watch this movie, especially on the big screen, I think I might be able to pull one out of my sleeve. The soundtrack to “Wicked: For Good” is not as solid as the original. In fact, the parts of the soundtrack I found to be the most memorable are throwbacks to songs from the original movie. There are some good songs, but not anything on the level of say “Defying Gravity,” except for one number. That number being “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.” There are so many fantastic elements that make this sequence worth writing home about. I almost want to shout out Cynthia Erivo for her ability to carry a tune in this scene like it is nothing. But then I remember that this sequence contains some incredibly dazzling showcases of visual effects. And while I do think the film could have been improved from a color perspective, I thought the overall aesthetic of this scene was perfect at times. Despite a lot of pizzazz going on in the frame, several shots feel kind of dry and rugged. It kind of matched the tension of the film at the time. It came at one of this film’s closest moments to what somebody could call a tipping point. The soundwork in this scene is great, and this was most definitely a treat to hear in Dolby. After seeing these two “Wicked” films, I would be totally fine if I never had any chance to watch them a second time. But I will not lie, part of me could see myself going on YouTube and either watching this clip again for fun, or listening to this song through my headphones.
I have not seen the “Wicked” play. Yes, I know, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” is not a song that is original to this film’s soundtrack. That said, I like the way the song is utilized in this film. It satisfies both the eyes and ears. One thing I also like is that in the moments that follow, we have a crowd of people singing a similar sounding song called “March of the Witch Hunters” that changes the core lyrics ever so slightly. It is executed rather chillingly.
Speaking of singing, watching Jeff Goldblum try to sing in this movie is something else. Do not get me wrong, Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard, like many of his other roles, is charismatic. But the guy cannot sing. He can change your apartment, he can change the world, but he cannot sing. He tries. He puts some effort into his material, and even as he fails he still has a sense of star power. Although when the film has Goldblum singing, he comes off like a reserved, yet somewhat noticeably drunk dad who drags his family into the basement so he can try out his new karaoke machine for the first time. I love Jeff Goldblum, but this is not his best work. If I were to judge Goldblum for his performance in the first “Wicked” I would say his performance was perfectly acceptable. But when this movie asks him to sing, which is one of the most important parts of making a musical, that is where the corniness ensues.
In the end, the “Wicked” movies are 0 for 2. I do not mind musicals. I enjoy fantasy movies. To quote that one kid from “A Christmas Story,” “I like ‘The Wizard of Oz.'” If there is one adjective that I could use to describe these movies, it would be “consistent.” The films are consistently boring, consistently colorless, and consistently annoying. I never latched onto the universe that these two movies were trying to sell me. It has simply never once appealed to me. When I reviewed the first “Wicked,” I said it failed on the most important thing a part one is supposed to do, which is get me excited for this film, part two. Wait, sorry, I mean for “For Good…” The title card in the original says “Part One,” why does this one not say “Part Two?” Kind of weird. Anyway, now that I have seen “Wicked: For Good,” it fails at something of equal importance, which is getting me to care about the cast of characters. I like the actors in the film, and I think like the last movie, Ariana Grande easily gives the best performance. But their characters, like the story, rarely, if ever, engage me by the film’s conclusion. I am going to give “Wicked: For Good” a 4/10.
“Wicked: For Good” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Sentimental Value!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Zootopia 2,” “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” and “Bugonia.” 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 “Wicked: For Good?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Wicked” movies is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 