Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

The Accountant 2 (2025): Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal Shine in Two Hours of Punches and Booms

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Accountant 2” is directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed this film’s 2016 predecessor. This film stars Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back), Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead, The Punisher), Cynthia Addai-Robinson (Spartacus, Arrow), Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Originals), and J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Whiplash). This film once again follows Christian Wolff who teams up with his brother, Braxton, to find mysterious assassins.

Before going to see “The Accountant 2” I made an effort to rewatch the original. If you remember my amateurish review you would know that I connected to the film at the time. This was mostly due to how the protagonist was written and executed. Ben Affleck plays an individual who has high functioning autism. I have grown up having many of the traits and quirks that we see from various stages of this character’s life such as his lack of urge to socialize with others. I also thought the film does a good job at providing a humanized portrayal of autism as opposed to a more stereotypical, robotic interpretation.

Is “The Accountant 2” as good as the first one? No, it is not. But is it still worth watching? Perhaps. My biggest problem with this film is that it feels less story-driven and a little more action driven. It’s like the writers listened to Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” and suddenly thought, “We’ve cracked the code!”

Now I have no problem with good action. And to be honest, this movie has some good action. However, the action scenes sometimes lack the oomph of those in the original. Part of it is because the story here is rather convoluted. I am not going to pretend the story in the original riveted me all the way through. The movie relied way too much on flashbacks towards the end to the point of utter boredom. But this sequel at times feels overstuffed.

While the film may be slightly above average, one great thing about it is the chemistry between Christian (Affleck) and Braxton (Bernthal). The film spends lots of time putting these two in the same place, and every scene between them is worth the price of admission. There is a fantastic scene where Bernthal says he wants a dog and Affleck says everything possible to confirm that he is a cat person. The delivery between these two is on point each and every time.

Going back to how I relate to the characters in this franchise, I almost see Christian and Braxton as a personal representation of a conflict that has been circling in my mind nonstop throughout my young adult life. While these two bond as brothers, they have their differences. One key difference between these two is their individual wants in life. We see Braxton as a lone wolf, which I have always been throughout most of my life. If he puts his mind to something, he does it. He works on his own terms. But then we find out a little bit about Christian, who would like to have a partner he can check in on every once in a while. In this way, Christian, is a little more than meets the eye. You would not expect someone of his mannerisms to be interested in a relationship, but I buy his desire. As I watched this film I thought these character differences represented my personal yin and yang. Do I love being alone? Quite a bit, actually. But do I want someone to check in on? A part of me thinks about it every day.

Speaking of conflicts, I have a conflicting opinion regarding Christian Wolff in this film. Starting with the positives, I genuinely think Ben Affleck put a lot of effort into his performance and he is a standout as the character. Although some of the choices that were made in regard to the character threw me off. I get that Wolff has autism, but he comes off as a robot in this film, especially in comparison to the original. If anything, Wolff is sometimes a lackluster stereotype for people on the spectrum. For some reason, some of his line delivery and choice of words lack authenticity. I would not say that this film paints autism in the worst light, but sometimes his performance, particularly through his onslaught of stoicism, is overly emphasized. Sure, in the original, Wolff may be a bit robotic, but he also has a heart as well as feelings. In this sequel, he sounds more like the T-800. Sure, Affleck is not entirely robotic. When paired with Bernthal in this film, the two seem like genuine brothers. But if I were to judge Affleck by himself, he is sometimes soulless. Again, this is not an incompetent performance. I just think a little more depth and pizzazz could have been added to it.

“The Accountant 2” is not a movie I can see myself renting or buying to watch on my own schedule. To me, it is a cable movie. It is a movie that I would watch on a Sunday at home and eventually rely on for background noise. Now whether this movie will ever end up on cable is another story. The film is from Amazon after all and I doubt they want anybody leaving Prime or whatever the heck MGM+ is. Seriously, who uses MGM+? Anyone? If you have not seen the original “Accountant,” I much recommend that film over this one. It moves at a better pace, is less convoluted, and honestly does a much better job at characterization than the sequel. I enjoyed getting to know Christian Wolff not only through his profession but as someone who is on the spectrum. I thought the flashbacks during that film, most of them anyway, were used to its benefit. Like this sequel, the original has some decent action, but I cared more about what happened during those action scenes based on what I was learning about Christian as a character at the time. The sequel’s action is not bad, but it suffers from inferior character progression as well as storytelling. If it were not for the perfect chemistry between Affleck and Bernthal, I do not think I would be lending as much praise to this film.

In the end, “The Accountant 2” has its ups and downs. There are other recent films I would recommend watching before this one, especially in the action genre. Although if you are simply looking for good action, you will find it here. But this film is not a full meal. It satisfies in some ways and leaves a little to be desired in others. Do not get me wrong, Ben Affleck does not do a bad job in this film, and neither does Jon Bernthal. But I would not rush to see this film right away. I am going to give “The Accountant 2” a 6/10.

“The Accountant 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Prime Video.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Red One (2024): A Holiday Movie for Everyone, and Therefore, No One

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Red One” is directed by Jake Kasdan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Sex Tape) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Central Intelligence, Moana), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, Knives Out), Lucy Liu (Charlie’s Angels, Strange World), and J.K. Simmons. This film showcases what happens when Santa’s bodyguard (Johnson) and a hacker (Evans) team up to find and rescue Saint Nick himself after he has been kidnapped.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

There are two words that define “Red One” for me. And no, they are not “red” or “one.” The two words that have consistently stayed in my head regarding “Red One” just so happen to be “it’s fine.” It is that middle of the road utterance you give to someone when you are trying not to hurt their feelings, but you also do not want to overblow your emotions and put on a performance. What did I think of the first “Red One” trailer? Eh, it’s fine. What did I think of the second trailer? I mean, it’s fine I guess. Looks fun enough. I was entertained by both of them. They both made me curious about the film. But I am not going to pretend it boosted my excitement in the same way that Marvel’s “Thunderbolts*” did, which took me from a concept I felt rather indifferent about, to immediately demanding at least five or so minutes of more footage.

I will be real, if you were to measure my excitement for “Red One,” it would be somewhere in the middle. I cannot pretend I have massive expectations for this film, but there are promising elements to behold. I liked the whole spy action vibe the film was promising, where the objective for our two recognizable leads is to rescue Santa Claus. “Violent Night” recently showed you can make a cool modern action flick with a Christmas backdrop, so maybe “Red One” would result in something similar.

Not to beat a dead horse… But “Red One” is, well, what other description can I possibly give?! It’s fine! If they come out with a DVD for this film, please note how I said if, not when, because this movie is an Amazon production. But if they come out with a DVD for “Red One,” you might as well take the two words I just said, “It’s fine,” and put that quote on the bottom of the cover. I bet that will make a great addition to the Walmart $5 bin. Do those bins even exist anymore? Asking for a friend.

I have heard this comparison before, but I think there is almost no better way to pitch this film to someone. “Red One” is practically a movie within a movie. It is a movie that you would make that purely exists within the universe of another film, or even say a TV show. This is the kind of movie that would exist in an episode of “The Big Bang Theory,” Penny would have to pitch the concept to her friends after she reads the script only to pause for audience laughter. The concept sounds goofy enough, but putting actors as notable as Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans in the lead roles? It is a perfect recipe for a two minute gag in a coming of age comedy. But this movie is not two minutes. It is more than two hours. And it packs quite a bit into the runtime. Some of it lands, some of it does not. But it is hard for me to say that there was a lot in the movie that gave me a particularly strong reaction. Not much made me overly irate. Not much made me giddy with glee. That said, there are things that stood out to me about the film.

One positive I have about the film is how much lore they put into the mythology of Christmas, the North Pole, Santa Claus, or even other mysterious beings. The film undoubtedly puts a creative twist on handling what we tend to know as mythology.

That said, this film’s interpretation of the North Pole is both creative and underwhelming at the same time. For my “Star Wars” fans out there, it is basically the midichlorians of North Pole interpretations. When I think of the North Pole based on how I imagined it as a kid and what I have seen through media, I have always interpreted it as this whimsy, magical place. But a couple of the first things I notice when we get to the North Pole are a semi-depressing color scheme and drones flying. Sure, maybe drones can be magical… But when I look at the drones they have no poppy color to them, no pizzazz, and they honestly look like something you’d find in a store. The North Pole does not look as fun or magical as other interpretations. If anything it looks kind of bland. I get that the movie is a spy action thriller, and I like parts of what they are going for. But the North Pole is not one of them.

I also want to note something to families looking to see this film. I will not spoil anything considering the movie is new, but the movie opens with some material I think certain children should not be seeing. Also, this scene does set up the rest of the film, but I also think that scene would have been a better set up to a different story. For the record, the scene features a younger version of Chris Evans’ character, Jack O’Malley, and shows him doing something he probably should not be doing. We see this develop into something else in the long term, but I would love to see how this would have paid off in a shorter term. Perhaps hours, days, or even a year after Jack commits to his actions. Again, I will not go into detail. I think it would have spiraled into a movie that would have been much more fun than the one we got.

The holiday season is full of new films with great performances, many of which get nominated for Oscars, Critics Choice Awards, SAGs, and so on. “Red One” is not one of those movies. In fact it is not even close. Yes, there are competent performances on the supporting end. There is nothing totally anger-inducing, yet there is also not really much to write home about. With that in mind, if you were to ask me what I want for Christmas this year? It would for this movie to have two significantly better lead performances.

I am not going to pretend that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is the greatest actor of all time. Though I would not doubt his charisma gets him by from one movie to the next. That said, after several outings, he almost seems to do the same song and dance every other time. Yeah, maybe the “Jumanji” movies showcase his skills sometimes because he has to play other people simulating him. But when I look at movies like “Skyscraper,” “Rampage,” “Red Notice,” or this latest one, he seems to be playing some variation of himself. In some of these movies, even if he does not give an Oscar-worthy performance, he at least has a positive presence. The same can be said for “Red One” in certain scenes. I liked all the scenes between Johnson’s character, Callum Drift, and Santa Claus, played nicely by J.K. Simmons. But for various portions of the film, Johnson came off as if he was just playing the hits, but giving a tired version of them. The performance is not that inviting. It feels been there, done that. Does Johnson look like he wants to be on set? The way the movie is presented certainly makes him look that way. But I am willing to bet whenever he smiled on screen, that smile came with the knowledge that he would soon be getting a good chunk of the movie’s $250 million dollar budget.

Yeah… There is no way this movie cost $250 million. There are definitely a lot of special effects and things going on in each frame, but there is no way this is movie cost as much to make as “The Dark Knight Rises…”

Speaking of people who probably got paid a crapton of money for their presence in the film, let’s talk about Chris Evans! I love Chris Evans. Of course I have enjoyed watching him as Captain America, but even in movies I did not enjoy, I still think Evans ends up being a highlight. Personally, he was the best part of that forgettable Netflix movie, “The Gray Man.” But as far as Evans goes, his performance belongs on the naughty list. Though I would not entirely blame Chris Evans. While he may appear to be sleepwalking in the film from time to time, the script does him almost no favors. His character is about as one-dimensional as a ragdoll in “G-Mod.” Every other moment with Evans is just him acting bewildered or mind-blown. He is clearly playing the fish out of water role, but such a trait brings nothing interesting to the table as far as this project is concerned. Other than trying to get what he wants when he wants it, being a lame fish out of water might as well be Jack’s entire personality. Well, those aspects in addition to perving out on Wonder Woman.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

As for the action in this film, I am surprised to say that there are some standout scenes. There are a couple minutes inside of Jack O’Malley’s apartment where he fends off tons of people at once. I thought the choreography in that scene was really good. There is a creative moment in the film involving Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots. While I thought the scene itself was average, I did like one confrontation between Jack O’Malley and a giant snowman that turns its head like a Terminator when placed on a burning grill. But I cannot pretend I was that riveted by any of the action scenes. If anything I was amused by them, but to say I was wowed would be a hyperbole.

This is not necessarily an action scene as much as it is a face off, but there is a fantastic scene where our heroes come face to face with Krampus. There is a perfectly paced few minutes where Krampus and one of the characters are going one on one in the creature’s own game. It is quite entertaining. Sadly, I cannot say most of the movie is just as thrilling. By the way, for a movie full of visuals that would make you think it is a forgotten project from the late 2000s, early 2010s, I have to say the look for Krampus is a great display of practical effects. He looks great!

Theoretically, “Red One” is a movie that seems to be made to entertain or satisfy just about every person who would see it. But that is also where the film has a drawback. It tries to be dozens of things at once to the point where it does not really seem to know who exactly it is for. Is it for action junkies? Is it for people who like Christmas movies? Is it for people who like “The Rock?” Is it for people looking for a bit of a family dynamic? Will teens like it? Does it have enough for the kiddos? The movie throws a bunch of things at the wall. Some may stick, but not like superglue. Sure, “Red One” has action, but it is not the most innovative or exciting of the year. Yes, this movie has a Christmas backdrop, but lacks a sense of spirit or magic. Of course, “The Rock” is in the movie, but I would say he has had better performances and scripts to work with. There is a family dynamic but it almost lingers in the background. Certain teens would probably get behind some of the spectacle-based scenes but to call this movie the most spectacular-looking of the year when “Dune: Part Two” and “Twisters” exist would be generous. Kids could also be entertained by the adventure, but there are some things in this film that I imagine their parents would not want them to see.

When you break it down, “Red One” tries to be for everybody, but embraces its elements so minimally or poorly to the point where the movie is arguably for nobody. If you want to watch a movie from this year that so brilliantly speaks to several demographics, one that comes to mind would probably be “The Fall Guy.” For those looking for holiday cheer, you might be disappointed. Maybe some younger viewers should stay away from the film too. But for those looking for ludicrous action, charismatic stars, great music, an engaging love story, and a fun adventure, it is one of the year’s best flicks. I cannot say “Red One” is the movie equivalent to a lump of coal, but watching the movie at times sort of feels similar to going into my stocking on Christmas morning and finding a toothbrush. It works, but it might not exactly be what I am looking for.

In the end, “Red One” is as the kids say, mid. It is not great, not terrible. Just okay. Do I feel like my time was wasted watching “Red One?” Probably not. Will I watch it again in the future? Also probably not. But “Red One” is not worthy of the same applause that certain Christmas classics continue to get today. Movies like “Home Alone” or “Elf” or if you want to talk about something from this decade, I would say “Red One” does not even hold a candle to “The Holdovers.” If you are having company over during the holidays and need background noise on the television, “Red One” is somewhat serviceable. But you could also do a lot better. I am going to give “Red One” a 5/10.

“Red One” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Red One?” What did you think about it? Or, are there any Christmas movies you watch once a year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

My Old Ass (2024): A Short and Sweet Ride Through a Couple Walks of One’s Life

Posted on by Jack Drees

“My Old Ass” is written and directed by Megan Park (The Neighbors, The Secret Life of the American Teenager) and stars Maisy Stella (Nashville, Spirit Riding Free), Percy Hynes White (The Gifted, Wednesday), Maddie Ziegler (Music, The Fallout), Kerrice Brooks (The Prom, How We Roll) and Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, Dirty Grandpa). This film is about a young girl who gets a chance to talk to her older self. Once the younger self receives advice from her older self, the story showcases the younger self’s journey as she takes or leaves said advice.

There are some ideas that make you go “Why didn’t I think of that?” As someone who is heavily into film, I find myself saying that sometimes about the movies I watch. The more I think about “My Old Ass,” that is a film that fits within that sphere. The only thing is, I am 24. But as someone who watched this movie at such an age, I think it probably would have been a good idea years down the road. Then again, as a 24 year old, I would still say some things to my younger self, telling them my regrets, the things to look forward to, maybe to invest in GameStop for a short time in 2021. By the way, read my review for “Dumb Money” if you want to see people do things in 2021 that I probably should have… Stupid brain.

But I love this idea of an older self and a younger self communicating with each other. And I have to say the way it was executed was very well done. First off, while these two are not dead ringers of each other, I buy Maisy Stella (right) and Aubrey Plaza (left) as the same person, specifically Elliott. They seem to carry a number of mannerisms that make them come off as the same individual, but differentiate enough to the point where they feel like they are not the same age. Aubrey Plaza’s character is giving Maisy Stella’s character advice, including one piece at which she seems to scoff at first, particularly hanging out with her brothers. I bought into the execution of the advice, I bought into the younger self’s reaction. I think the way the movie goes about its concept is hypnotizing and clever.

I also have to say that I came very close to having an enormous complaint about this movie. I thought the way this movie was handled in terms of its structure, in terms of its characterization, and the end results of certain character arcs, would amount to something rather predictable. As we got to the movie’s end, the movie takes a sudden turn that I could have never seen coming. It is arguably the most positive out of left field moment I experienced watching a film this year.

I kind of like the way this movie handles its relationship between the two main selves, and the way the story progresses between them. If you are a teenager reading this, if you look back at your current time in life with no problems or regrets, then you probably have lived a different life than the vast majority of the world’s population. I would say I was smart as a teenager, but I would also say that there are moments in my life where my older self would tell my teenage self to go in a different direction. In a perfect world, my teen self would listen to my older self because, well, that is me. I might as well be my own best teacher, or perhaps more appropriately, my own worst critic. But this movie shows the moments where the teen self has trouble listening to or acknowledging the advice of the older self, but it makes sense. After all, let’s face it, I think everyone can agree on this in regards to any point in our lives, but it is especially true in the teen years. We might not agree on every single piece of advice given to us. We might think we have everything down, but the reality is we might not know what exactly is down the road. Short term we might think something is good for us, but long term? Maybe it is not as good as we think, at least from a certain point of view. There is one particular relationship that plays out where we see this come to fruition.

This movie also shows how we hold our entire time on this earth near and dear to ourselves. While this movie shows how stupid or clueless we can be as teenagers, it also shows us that our choices make us who we are. It shows us that everything happens for a reason, and maybe if we make one stupid or clueless choice, maybe it is worth it because something better lies ahead or there is something else in life to look forward to. There is one quote in the movie, it is also in the trailer, specifically from young Elliott, that I love. Specifically, “If you weren’t young and dumb you wouldn’t be brave enough to do anything.” I adore this quote because not only is it true that many of us tend to become more calculated as we age, perhaps we play things safer. But it also implies that sometimes big risks can lead to big reward. What may seem like an unlikely or dumb decision could also turn out to be a life-changing moment. When we are young, we have our entire lives ahead of us. There is room for error. It never hurts to try something new, take a chance, open our minds. Granted, we should also use logic in our decision-making. But it does not mean we should not be open to risk every once in a while.

Will I watch “My Old Ass” a second time? If we are talking tomorrow or the next week, maybe not, unless someone requests to see it at the theater with me. That said, I probably would not go watch it alone as there are plenty of other movies I need to get around to watching. As far as replay value goes though, I think it would be fun to maybe check out “My Old Ass” again in 15, 20, maybe 25 years. Because I watched this film as someone who is closer to the younger self’s age, but I am curious to know, given the life experience I would have in the coming years, what commonalities I would have to the older self. I would watch “My Old Ass” again for that reason. Well that, and the fact that the movie is in fact quite entertaining.

In the end, “My Old Ass” is a movie that makes you laugh and think. It makes you ask questions about the choices you have made in your life and whether they were worth making. As someone who is still on the younger side, it got me thinking about my future and what kind of path I would like to make for myself moving forward. The chemistry between Maisy Stella and Aubrey Plaza is perfect. A lot of the supporting characters are likable. And I honestly left the movie wanting more. I am going to give “My Old Ass” a 7/10.

“My Old Ass” is now playing in select cities, and will be available in more theaters later this month. For my viewers near me in the Greater Boston area, you can catch the film in select cinemas starting Thursday, September, 19th. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the biopic “Reagan.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my thoughts on “It Ends with Us” and “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice!” 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 “My Old Ass?” What did you think about it? Or, what is something you would tell your younger self, or even ask your older self? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Challengers (2024): Luca Guadagnino Serves Up a Painfully Average Tennis Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Challengers” is directed by Luca Guadagnino (Call Me by Your Name, Bones and All) and stars Zendaya (Spider-Man: No Way Home, Euphoria), Josh O’Connor (The Crown, Hope Gap), and Mike Faist (West Side Story, Panic) in a story revolving around a tennis prodigy named Tashi Duncan and two ex-best friends named Patrick (O’Connor) and Art (Faist), both of whom expressed sexual interest in her. Years after they have met, Tashi is now married to Art, who must compete in an ATP Challenger tennis match against Patrick, a much less prominent figure in the sport.

There are no two words in marketing more accurate than “sex sells.” Let’s be real though. Much of “Challengers” revolves around tennis. I like tennis. I’ve played tennis. I watch tennis occasionally when it is on television. But I am willing to bet some of you reading this right now have probably seen this movie. And for all I know, maybe you like tennis too. But you probably went to this movie for another reason.

Admit it…

And if you did, I would not blame you. Sex sells. I have seen ads on TV promoting the film and they ended up using a review, which I unfortunately cannot find at the moment, but I swear this is true… The spot said the movie was so sexy it might just get you pregnant. Now THAT is the endorsement of the bloody century. Imagine one day you have a kid and they’re gonna ask you and your spouse, “Where do babies come from?” Your answer, “Challengers.”

This movie was a marketer’s dream. It had everything to sell a moviegoer. You have an experienced, Oscar-nominated filmmaker, specifically Luca Guadagnino, helming this picture. In the forefront, you have a star actor in Zendaya, who is hot right now off of “Dune Part Two.” On top of that, you’ve got romance, drama, and of course, sexuality. Let’s not forget about that. As a movie critic, I wanted to of course know how the movie is. But of course, a lot of the positive marks of the movie from other people tie directly to, perhaps unsurprisingly, its sex appeal. So I feel obligated to talk about that.

I am going to issue a hot take… This movie is not sexy. Maybe from a screenwriting perspective, there are layers where you could make something seductive or hot, but for my money, I do not see the appeal. If anything, the movie almost gets to that point in one scene or another, but cannot quite go all the way.

When it comes to judging “Challengers,” it is hard to say that my tastes align with the crowd. I honestly did not enjoy this movie. And much like the sexuality factor, there are elements of the movie itself that work for me. This movie is one of those stories that contains its ups and downs.

The biggest positive for me when it comes to “Challengers” is perhaps the most important aspect of the film, at least on screen, and that is the chemistry between the three leads. Zendaya, Josh O’Connor, and Mike Faist are all top tier in this film and I honestly would not mind them reuniting for another project if the opportunity were to strike. “Challengers” is at its best when these three are on screen at the same time. The scenes where all three of these characters are at their youngest and just getting to know each other make for some of the most genuine, human connections I have seen in recent film.

When it comes to the overall vibe of her performance, Zendaya rides a fine line between glamour and girl next door. While I have missed out on some of her career highlights including “Euphoria” and “The Greatest Showman,” based on what I have seen from her, Zendaya is a performer who frankly gets better with each role she takes on and “Challengers” could arguably be her best performance yet. The job of an actor is to make you believe that they could be someone they are not. In addition to Zendaya transforming into a tennis pro, she also plays the character through multiple ages. Granted, the timeline does not spread significantly far, it’s not like it’s twenty, thirty years, but I think Zendaya did a good job at encapsulating the character through multiple points of her life. I knew Zendaya was skilled, but I did not think she had that kind of talent in her. I am pleased to see her kill it in this role.

That said, I have to be real. I like the way the actors handle the material given to them. Although it does not mean that I enjoyed the material itself. If anything, the film is boring, and almost headache-inducing. I saw “Challengers” was playing in IMAX. In fact, I almost went to see it in IMAX. While it would have been cool to see the tennis scenes, including the thrilling moment where the camera is shown from the ball’s perspective in IMAX, I am glad I ended up seeing this in a standard theater because some of the music choices in “Challengers” got on my nerves. When it comes to music in film, it is rare for me to say that a song choice or a moment in the score feels out of place or broken. The film is chock full of electronic dance music, and it is honestly some of the most unbearable noise yours truly ever had the displeasure of witnessing in a movie theater. Especially considering how cranked up it sounds. It is honestly worse than some of the music in “Civil War,” and I thought that would be the low point in cinema this year from a musical perspective. Maybe my tastes do not align with the crowd or I need to go outside more and get some fresh air. Perhaps I am yelling at a cloud, but when that music blares, it reminds me of when people, sometimes justifiably, complain about the sound mixing in Christopher Nolan movies like “Dunkirk” and “Tenet.” I should note, I have sensitive ears, which I think is hilarious considering how often I go to the movies… Therefore, certain sounds are likely to irritate me more than other people. Maybe the music will work for you. But for me, “Challengers” is probably the worst film soundtrack I have heard in a long time.

I will not deny that there are things to like about “Challengers.” I have already gone on long enough about how much I enjoyed the performances. Technically, this movie gets creative with its cinematography. While I was not fully invested in the film, I will admit the last few seconds put a smile on my face to some degree. But there are so many detractors that keep this from being good in my book. A series of scenes that fail to keep me entertained. My inability to attach myself to the characters 100 percent of the time. Ungodly amounts of slow motion that honestly did not need to be there. And despite this movie boasting about how steamy it is in the marketing, I am honestly not buying what they are selling. If you were turned on by “Challengers,” you do you. But as I said before, I do not see the appeal.

In the end, “Challengers” was challenging to watch at times. Honestly, if you want a better tennis movie, also starring someone who played Spider-Man’s love interest, just go watch “Battle of the Sexes.” It’s a good story, it’s entertaining, and Emma Stone along with Steve Carell make for a solid leading duo. I remember “Challengers” was supposed to come out at the tail end of 2023, making it potentially a fierce competitor during the previous award season. Unfortunately, it was delayed due to the industry-related strikes. I was looking forward to “Challengers,” but this movie was not worth the wait. There are some notable positives regarding “Challengers,” but the negatives stick out like a sore thumb to me. If somebody ever brings up “Challengers” in a conversation, I am going to think of it as “the tennis movie with terrible music” as opposed to “the tennis movie where it has a really cool shot where you get to be the ball for a short period of time.” It is not a reality I am proud to be a part of, but in my reviews, it is better to be brutally honest than to make up a positive on the spot that does not feel genuine. I am going to give “Challengers” a 4/10.

“Challengers” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Fall Guy.” I had a great time with the film and I cannot wait to share my thoughts with you guys! Also coming soon, I have reviews on the way for “Tarot,” “IF,” “The Garfield Movie,” and “I Saw the TV Glow.” 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 “Challengers?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite tennis movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Beekeeper (2024): Jason Statham Stings Some Baddies in This Entertaining Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Beekeeper” is directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad, Fury) and stars Jason Statham (Fast X, The Meg), Emmy Raver-Lampman (Central Park, The Umbrella Academy), Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games, Five Nights at Freddie’s), Bobby Naderi (Black Summer, Bright), Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting, Speechless), Phylicia Rashad (Creed, The Cosby Show), and Jeremy Irons (The Lion King, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice). The film centers around a beekeeper and former operative who goes on a revenge quest after a woman falls for a phishing scam.

January and February are the two months where movies go to die. That is an objective fact. Do not get me wrong, there are some cases where you can release a movie in those months and have a hit. Look at movies like “Kung Fu Panda 3” or “Deadpool.” Both were well received and made a lot of money. When it comes to Jason Statham’s newest film, “The Beekeeper,” there is no way that I can see this film surpassing those at the box office. But much like those films, there is definitely a marketability behind this film that got me in the door. For one thing, it was not “Mean Girls,” which I do not plan on seeing. But in all seriousness, Jason Statham, kind of like Dwayne Johnson, has become one of Hollywood’s more likable action leads. Even if he does something that I would rather forget about like “Meg 2: The Trench,” I nevertheless like him. I just want to see him bust some heads.

Bust some heads? Should I say buzz? You know, buzz some heads?

…

Whatever, doesn’t matter.

Thankfully, we get plenty of head-busting in “The Beekeeper.”

This film is simple in its premise. It has some trademarks that action junkies may be used to seeing in other films, but that does not mean that this is a lackluster effort. If anything, it uses those trademarks decently. This film seems to follow a somewhat by the numbers revenge film formula, but the way it goes about it is entertaining. And a large part of that is because Jason Statham does a good job in the lead role.

Similarly, the same can be said for actors like Phylicia Rashad who plays the part of the victimized retired teacher, Eloise Park, with excellence. You also have Josh Hutcherson who arguably gives the best performance in the film as the antagonist, Derek Fanforth.

I have been used to seeing Hutcherson in certain roles over the years. In “The Polar Express” he voiced the Hero Boy. In the 2013 animated film “Epic,” he played a young Leafman named Nod. In “The Disaster Artist,” he plays Phillip, who ends up playing “Danny” in “The Room,” the film that movie is about. And of course he is well known for his time playing Peeta in “The Hunger Games.” In these roles, I often got a Mr. Nice Guy vibe from Hutcherson to some degree, even if his character had personal flaws. In this film, it is a much different role for Hutcherson, and I admire what they did with him. From the first scene, he is a moron with little to no remorse whatsoever. His character is almost what happens if you take someone with the looks and personality of John Mulaney but mixed it with that of a charismatic cult leader who has been involved in many a scandal.

Another notable positive that captivated me from scene one is the overall aesthetic of the film. The set design, such as that inside the UDG call center for example, is eye-popping. Everything leaps off the screen and it either makes me feel like I am either in the scene or I want to reach out and touch something in the scene. Everything is not only neatly patterned, but insanely colorful. The lighting in the film is quite nice. Technically speaking, I am not going to pretend this film is the next big thing. In fact, there are a few action films from the last ten years that I would point to that look a bit better and creatively more ambitious than this film makes itself out to be. That said, every trick this film goes for, it seems to nail. The camerawork is dazzling. The lighting is pristine. The editing is quickly paced and well spliced. Overall, I would give the film’s look a thumbs up.

Now there is clearly a lot that I enjoy about “The Beekeeper.” In fact, as far as January movies go, this is surprisingly good. That said, it is predictable and somewhat cliché. If you have seen certain action films in recent years, again, there are things that feel repetitive from those other movies. But that’s not the problem with “The Beekeeper” that seems to linger on my mind the most. That problem in particular is the ending. Now, I do not feel cheated. I am not going to say that this is the worst ending I have witnessed in the history of cinema. But in terms of recent film, I cannot think of one that is as abrupt and out of nowhere than what this film gives. It is not really that satisfying. Yes, the main issue of the film comes to a conclusion, but the film ever so quickly says goodbye to its audience. It does not give much time to breathe. It is kind of like “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” in a sense where the big climax hits its peak and just like that, the movie takes little time to wrap itself up. It feels spontaneous.

Going back to positives, “The Beekeeper” sort of reminds me of the original “John Wick” in a sense. Both films star charismatic men who kick tons of butt and take names, but the films offer similar vibes throughout their runtime. There is a dramatic flair, but with some occasional wit here and there. But the real reason why the two feel like a match made in Heaven is because they both have protagonists who you can watch and root for just for violently taking out tons of people left and right. I have lived entirely in an age of computers, I think phishers are the scum of the earth, and that is putting it nicely. As someone who briefly worked in tech at Staples and as someone who uses a computer every day, I love seeing a man go to town on people who think it is okay to take advantage of those who may not know as much about technology. Of course, the real me knows killing people is wrong. But I am watching this movie feeling as if many of the kills Jason Statham makes happen to be justified. Honestly, after watching the obnoxiously dreadful “Fast X” and the intolerably dull “Meg 2: The Trench,” it is great to see Jason Statham in something worth watching for the first time in awhile.

No, I did not watch “The Expendables 4” for those who ask. I am well aware of the negative reviews. That said, they did not steer me away from the movie. I did not watch the prior three.

In the end, “The Beekeeper” is not quite an A, but I am sure that a movie of this title would happily settle for a B. Jason Statham kills it in the lead role. The supporting cast, across the board, all do their best and deliver satisfying results to this thrilling ride. Does it have problems? Sure, it has a few. But as far as January movies go, this is a win. The film reminds me of other revenge flicks I liked in the past decade like “John Wick” and “Nobody.” It is hard to know if I will remember “The Beekeeper” to the same degree I to which remember those two films, but I had a good time with it nonetheless. I am going to give “The Beekeeper” a 7/10.

“The Beekeeper” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Driving Madeline.” I just had a chance to watch the movie over the weekend with a couple pals. I will share my thoughts soon. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Beekeeper?” What did you think about it? Or what is your favorite Jason Statham movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bottoms (2023): A Rambunctious, Raunchy Comedy That is Too Cool for School

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Bottoms” is written and directed by Emma Seligman (Shiva Baby, Void) and stars her co-writer, Rachel Sennott (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Call Your Mother). Joining her in this cast are actors including Ayo Edebiri (Big Mouth, Up Next), Ruby Cruz (Mare of Easttown, Willow), Havana Rose Liu (No Exit, Mayday), Kaia Gerber (American Horror Stories, Babylon), Nicholas Galitzine (Cinderella, Chambers), Miles Fowler (Women of the Movement, The Resident), Dagmara Domińczyk (Succession, We Own This City), and Marshawn Lynch (80 for Brady, Westworld). This film is about two queer girls who start a fight club in their high school that they say is meant to empower women. Only thing, the duo started the club to potentially get lucky with cheerleaders.

The concept of this movie won me over as soon as I heard it. From the very beginning, “Bottoms” sounded like a bombastic, ridiculous good time. Little did I know what I was in for, because I went in expecting this film to be a fine mix of violent and naughty scenes, but this movie overdelivered on its premise because it does not feel like something that fits in our world. It feels like someplace much goofier, perhaps a little more fun than our world. If anything, “Bottoms” plays like a live-action episode of “Family Guy.” That is if “Family Guy” centered around two teenage girls. It is horny, fast, and over the top. Not once was I bored, and I was overwhelmed with the sense of immersion this movie gave me from scene one. I often think about some of my favorite movies like “Blade Runner” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” and when it comes to those films in particular, they emit a certain atmosphere from start to finish. I am not saying “Bottoms” is on the same level those two films, but the atmosphere of this film does a really good job at taking me from my world to the one inside the screen. “Bottoms” is not my favorite movie of the year. In fact, when it comes to this year in comedy, I still give a slight edge to “Joy Ride,” which deserved to do much better at the box office.

Having seen “Bottoms” in live-action, the movie works perfectly the way it is. But I think an argument can be made to justify setting this universe in an animated form. There are a lot of moments that feel cartoony, but yet they never take me out of the movie. Because the vibe is clearly established from the beginning. It goes for such a quick, almost blink you’ll miss it pace from scene one, and it never stops. The best live-action comparison that comes to mind is “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” Because the film’s dynamic stylization feels like a graphic novel come to life. Once the film kicks into gear, it is full of incredibly kinetic energy. “Bottoms” does not have the colorful stylization “Scott Pilgrim” has, but when it comes to dialogue, displayed mannerisms, and personality, this film reaches for the end zone. Plus there are moments of the movie that do not feel they would happen in our lives, but work super well for that world. One of the storylines of “Bottoms” involves the two leads getting into hot water over ruining an egotistical high school football player’s chances of being able to play. How so? By tapping his kneecaps with a car while his girlfriend sits in the backseat. The reaction on said football player’s part is equal to if I were ever so slightly gored by a bull. It completely jumps the shark, but I cannot help but embrace it. And while there are hints of realism in this scenario, the school takes this issue to a level that feels more important than, I do not know, making sure students barely pay attention in advanced algebra.

Say what you want about “high school drama.” This film does a good job at taking situations that may seem silly and miniscule, and making them come off as if they have significantly higher stakes. And as everything is going down, I am rooting for the two leads. Both of them are likable and are well played by their respective performers. Rachel Sennott and Ayo Edebiri are a perfect combo. Speaking of perfect combos, Havana Rose Liu and Kaia Gerber do a fantastic job as the cheerleaders who just so happen to be heavily desired by the two leads. I am as straight as they come, that said I can see why these two leads were attracted to these particular cheerleaders.

But when it comes to the high school in “Bottoms,” this place is in contention to be the single greatest on-screen school in cinematic history. Not because of their ability to educate. Actually kind of the opposite. It goes to show how little the movie takes itself seriously. Because not only are the students and staff, primarily those who we see on screen most of the time, charming as heck. But one of the reasons why “Bottoms” works so well as a comedy is because when it comes to establishing its high school, it is often riddled with things would often get a traditional high school either investigated or shut down. One of the best gags of the movie are the moments when the loudspeaker is being used, and it brings out moments where the principal asks the two leads to come see him, all the while referring to them as “gay and untalented.”

I mentioned this movie is horny. And I am not just talking about the teens. Of course they are horny. They are teenagers. What do you expect? But this movie has a teacher, MARVELOUSLY portrayed by Marshawn Lynch, a freaking football player, having a casual conversation with the leads all the while exposing a dirty magazine. The school football team all look like Ken dolls come to life. Speaking of horny, the school football team happens to be marketing themselves throughout the movie, encouraging supporters to “get horny” for them.

When I watch certain movies, I will sometimes say that there are things that do not add up or make sense within everything the film is trying to showcase on screen. In the case of “Bottoms,” the high level of absurdity of the film is played in its favor. The vibe of the film is clearly established from the beginning. It is almost like a drug. The film knows what it is. It refuses to take itself seriously, and it is all the better for it.

But just because “Bottoms” manages to be constantly naughty, does not mean it stays away from feeling sweet. I am not going to go into much detail as to what the sweet moments are, but there are one or two moments in the movie that allow me to breathe in a story that is presented at such a breakneck pace, and they provided a fine mix of innocence and grace. They were very well executed.

Comedy, like many other aspects of art, happens to be a completely subjective matter. When it comes to the comedy of “Bottoms,” I was laughing consistently. Between this film, “No Hard Feelings,” and “Joy Ride,” I am really glad we are starting to witness a comeback of great raunchy comedy in cinema. If we can get more films like these that are just as good, I will continue to check them out.

In the end, “Bottoms” is one of my top movies of the summer. Again, when it comes to pure laughter and humor, I think “Joy Ride” is slightly better. But “Bottoms” is a close second regarding comedy this year. I do not think we had a year in cinema this decent for comedy since 2018. Ever since COVID-19 started, I feel like pure, straight-up comedies have been missing from the movie market, which is kind of sad because after the start of a pandemic where everything is depressing and seemingly world-ending, you would want a good laugh every once in a while. These movies have all done that with excellence, with “Bottoms” being the latest example. The writing is on point, the casting is perfect, including Marshawn Lynch to my delightful surprise, and it is a rare film where I accept its unserious, goofy tendencies. Not once do they feel distracting. This is a movie that I would not mind watching again if given the chance, and I imagine it aging better with each viewing. I am going to give “Bottoms” an 8/10.

“Bottoms” is now playing in theaters. It is also available to buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “A Haunting in Venice,” “The Creator,” and “Dumb Money.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Bottoms?” As silly of a question as that sounds, I am being serious. Did you watch the movie “Bottoms?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you admire that refuses to take itself seriously? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Licorice Pizza (2021): Paul Thomas Anderson Delivers a Pizza Crap

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Licorice Pizza” is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Phantom Thread, The Master) and stars Alana Haim, Cooper Hoffman, Sean Penn (Mystic River, Milk), Tom Waits (The Old Man & the Gun, The Dead Don’t Die), Bradley Cooper (Guardians of the Galaxy, A Star is Born), and Benny Safdie (Uncut Gems, Good Time). This film follows the connection between Alana Kane and Gary Valentine, not to be confused with the guy who plays Danny on “King of Queens,” as they spend time together in the San Fernando Valley in 1973.

BEVERLY HILLS, CA – FEBRUARY 05: Director Paul Thomas Anderson attends the 90th Annual Academy Awards Nominee Luncheon at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on February 5, 2018 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

Paul Thomas Anderson is a name I have not followed as much as other directors, and it is something I feel guilty of doing in regards to my film watching journey. Not only because he is an acclaimed name, but he also went to Emerson College, which I was probably going to attend had I gotten past the waitlist. So he has a bit of history in Boston, which as someone who lives near the Massachusetts state capital, is something I take a bit too seriously. I’ve seen “The Master” towards the end of the 2010s, but that’s all I have watched from him. I remember it being magnificently shot, but the story is not something that stuck with me to this day. I still need to watch “There Will Be Blood,” I own copies of “Inherent Vice” and “Phantom Thread” and still need to watch those. I still haven’t seen “Boogie Nights!” There are quite a few directors I have gotten around to over the years in terms of catching up on their filmography, but Paul Thomas Anderson fails to make the list.

When I saw the trailer for “Licorice Pizza,” I thought it sort of nailed the nostalgic aspect. The film takes place in the 1970s, and not only does it get a thumbs up for the production design that reminds me of walking into my grandparents’ house, but some of the music is okay as well. I think this film from a presentation point of view, checks a lot of boxes. It looks like it is from its focal decade, the acting, despite the leads having no evidential experience, is top-notch. For all I know, it could be on Anderson’s part. If I have learned anything from James Gunn over the years, he can take an actor with less experience like John Cena and make them pop. The best thing I can say about “Licorice Pizza” is that Alana Haim and Cooper Hoffman give good performances regardless of the material that’s given to them.

I’m not using that last sentence lightly, because “Licorice Pizza” is probably the most uncomfortable I have felt watching a movie in some time. Okay, well, maybe not as uncomfortable as “Music,” that s*it was downright personal. I live in the age of social media and in my teens I would talk to people far from my age group and nothing weird happened. Although I believe it is commonly agreed upon that adults should not be dating teens that are ten years apart in age. Gary in this film is 15 years old and Alana is 25.

Do you see the problem?

Now, if Alana was 18, that would be one thing, because that’s also technically an adult, but she is also old enough to still be in high school, just like Gary. TWENTY-FIVE?! The film is kind of a back and forth sort of thing in terms of the romance, where Gary sometimes claims Alana’s his girlfriend, but then the two go back to calling each other “business partners” or something else, but I honestly could not justify myself liking the character of Gary. Because when I think of these sorts of relationships, maybe I’m thinking the adult is in the wrong of dating someone that is significantly younger than them. But with Gary, he’s a literal pervert, and he’s not afraid to hide it. And he’s not a cool pervert like Ron Burgundy who has some personality, granted the movie he’s in respectively has a different vibe, but every time I look at Gary and he says some other line, I want to put some tape over his mouth.

Look, I’m a guy, and it is scientifically evident that guys love anything that has to do with sex. We are revolting creatures. But oh my god. Gary is a downright creep who I occasionally wanted to punch in the face throughout this film’s poorly paced runtime. Seriously, it felt like it was 15 or 30 minutes longer than it actually was. If it’s not about getting to see Alana’s boobs, it’s about making money. Downright power. That’s what we’re dealing with here. Now, I’ve seen “The Wolf of Wall Street,” Jordan Belfort in that film has a semi-similar personality, but he’s also proven that he can be chill, he can be cool. Granted Belfort’s not a teenager, that’s one big difference. Even so, I never got that positive vibe from Gary. I felt like he was trying too hard to be cool when in reality, he felt disgusting.

Now, and I cannot believe I have to say this on a blogging platform that my family reads… I don’t think Paul Thomas Anderson is interested in showing his junk to young girls. I mean, if the genders were reversed, where Alana sees a 25 year old Gary’s junk, who knows? I am comfortable with a storyline about sexual exploration, it’s not something I wouldn’t expect out of some coming of age tales, but this was poorly executed in the worst way possible. I would not want Gary as my friend, and I would want out of any matters involving him if he ever tried to get into Alana’s pants.

One of the most important things about a romance film is that the two leads are likable. I don’t even like their characters by themselves all that much, and even less so together. Because despite what I’ve been saying about Gary coming off as a creep, movies have shown how characters can develop and change. Compared to some other films that I’ve seen, including another recent 1970s nostalgia fest, “The Tender Bar,” I could not really catch onto much character development, especially from Gary. I think Alana’s character has some moments where I could feel her emotion, her stress, the want to escape from reality and other people, but it’s barely enough to make this movie the slightest bit watchable.

If I had any other positives to give “Licorice Pizza,” it is that Bradley Cooper shines as Jon Peters. He honestly came off as a bit of a drugged-up Hugh Hefner type. I think his presence in the film allows the costume design to show its power. Cooper was well directed by Anderson and I would not have minded seeing more of him.

In the end, “Licorice Pizza” is a film that I was looking forward to, but as soon as they stated the age difference, that was an immediate turnoff. This harkens back to the saying that first impressions matter. And if you think this is my only problem with the movie, I’ll mention once again that this movie could have been fifteen to thirty minutes shorter. The movie occasionally dragged, it felt boring. Gary Valentine is by no means a likable character. In fact, he’s probably the character that I hate the most of any project I’ve watched in the past 12 months or so. If you think “West Side Story” was worth skipping because of the Ansel Elgort controversy, I will not stop you from doing that. But based on the fictional elements presented in “Licorice Pizza,” this is a film that part of me wishes I could have skipped. It’s barely any fun, it’s creepy, and I wish the script was good enough to match the amazing talents of some of the actors on screen. I’ll probably go back and watch some of Anderson’s work like “Phantom Thread,” but I hope his next project, whenever that comes out, won’t be as off-putting as this. If you want a 1970s nostalgia fest, just go watch “The Tender Bar.” It’s on Prime Video, and worth your time. I’m going to give “Licorice Pizza” a 4/10.

“Licorice Pizza” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! This week I’m going to be watching the all new Japanese animated film, “Belle.” I have heard nothing but good things about this flick, and I am quite curious to see how it is. I will have a review coming soon, and if you want to see more content like this, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Scene Before Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Licorice Pizza?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film, one specifically that IS NOT in the horror genre, that genuinely makes you uncomfortable? For me, I’d say that would be “Music,” which I literally talked about in my worst of the year list a couple weeks ago! Let me know your pick down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

No Time to Die (2021): It’s a Good Time to Watch Daniel Craig’s Bond Swan Song

Posted on by Jack Drees

“No Time to Die,” a film that was literally scheduled to come out a year and a half ago mind you, so there really was still some time to die between then and now, is directed by Cary Joji Fukanaga (Maniac, Beasts of No Nation) and stars Daniel Craig (Knives Out, Logan Lucky) in his fifth and final portrayal of James Bond. Joining him this time around is Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody, Night at the Museum), Léa Seydoux (Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, Midnight in Paris), Lashana Lynch (Still Star-Crossed, Captain Marvel), Ben Whishaw (A Very English Scandal, Fargo), Naomie Harris (Venom: Let There Be Carnage, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest) Jeffrey Wright (What If…?, Westworld), Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained), and Ralph Fiennes (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The LEGO Batman Movie). This film is once again, Daniel Craig’s last outing as James Bond, the suave 007 spy who this time around, is retired, he’s done with his life as a spy, but when an old colleague asks for help, Bond takes on the job and finds himself down a path toward a villain who will unleash hell to the world with weapons of mass destruction.

Bond. James Bond. These are words that probably come to everyone’s mind when they think of the iconic 007 intellectual property. This is the last time we can associate them with Daniel Craig, who has not only done a great job at portraying the spy since “Casino Royale,” but as of recently, has also been the symbol of letting you know when the work week is over.

Exquisite.

I will admit, as excited as I was to see Daniel Craig give a goodbye to the character we’ve come to know for so many years, I was also a little nervous. The front of my head, all excited and ready to go, was doing cartwheels. Meanwhile, the back of my head, all nervous and timid, was shivering. Part of me wondered if Daniel Craig genuinely wanted to make a fifth Bond title or if he was just showing up for the paycheck. Thankfully, the trailers for this film put those worries away as each one is as action packed as the next. Each time this film got pushed back, it made me slightly more eager to see it to witness whether the thing I was bound to see was actually worth the wait. The film had more that intrigued me on the surface aside from Daniel Craig. Ana de Armas, one of the most objectively attractive and talented actresses working in Hollywood right now, plays a role in the film as well, and this is not even her first outing with Daniel Craig as they both played key roles in 2019’s “Knives Out,” which is one of the most fun films I have watched in recent years. The film was also shot in IMAX 70mm, which kind of didn’t matter in the end as it didn’t play anywhere in the format in which it was shot, but I saw the film in IMAX and those scenes are well put together, even if audiences will not usually be able to fully realize them. This is just speculation and pregame, so how was the film?

Everyone is going to have their personal rankings of the Daniel Craig Bond films. If it were me, I would put “No Time To Die” somewhere in the middle, which is not a bad thing, because based on the decent track record these films have, “No Time To Die” is a fun film to watch and just so happens to be a lovely tribute to the Daniel Craig era by the time it is over. For the most part, the film does not necessarily feel like a finale through the first act, I’d say you get more of that feel through the second and third act. I don’t mind that. Even though the film ends in one of the most climactic ways it could possibly go out, the feeling of this being the end never came off as forced.

We’ll skip Daniel Craig’s performance for a second, we’ll get to it. But going back to Ana De Armas, I think of all the film’s supporting characters, she was the most fun to watch. I may say this with a predisposed bias as I love the actress. I have been excited to see almost anything she’s in since “Blade Runner 2049,” but her character may be the most fun in the movie. I say that because she is genuinely HAVING THE MOST FUN in the movie. There is a scene that takes place in Cuba where she and Bond meet, they get dressed, get ready, and she’s just spewing out the fact, smilingly, that she’s had “three weeks training.” She’s just excited to see whatever comes up in her path. I would love to in some way, see more of this character. Or, based on what I just saw in this film, I would love to see Ana de Armas lead her own Bond-esque spy film. De Armas has one of my favorite performances in the film and her chemistry with Daniel Craig is untouchable.

And this also leads me with my one deterrent with Daniel Craig in this film. As much fun as I imagine Craig could be having on set, his character never feels like he’s having fun anywhere he goes, even for a drink. I dunno. I get it, he just retired and wants to relax, but it feels weird to say that I’m having fun when the main character is not. I get it. He’s out killing left and right, interrogating people, and after a while that can get boring, but I feel like the way Bond was written in this film made him feel less “fun” then he did in other iterations. I get that characters develop and change, and that’s good for story purposes, but I feel that one constant Bond has experienced is that he was genuinely happy to do what he does. It may just be a personal thing. If anything, the best way I can describe Bond in this film, is that he has a lot of the traces that the character had in every film from “Casino Royale” to “Spectre.” He’s badass, he’s kind of stern, and he’ll let out his emotions only when he means to. These are traits I keep in mind every time when I think of this character. But the way Bond is written in this film sort of reminds me of the way Luke Skywalker was written in “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” which currently stands as one of my least favorite “Star Wars” films to date. The reason why I bring that up is because Luke Skywalker has a broken personality to him to the point where he almost refuses to associate himself with what made him who he is. If you break down the two characters, Bond is obviously more in tune with his profession than Luke, but still.

One of the big lines of press this movie got before it came out was the fact that there was a brand new 007. Of course, Craig’s character left the service, so it’s only fitting that he got replaced. The replacement, Lashana Lynch’s character of Nomi. I don’t mind Lashana Lynch as an actress. I thought she did an okay job in “Captain Marvel” as much as I think it is one of the inferior MCU installments. Lynch brings her character to life here and there are some fun scenes with her. But there is one part of the film that the more I think about it, the more I dislike it. It’s this recurring gag between Craig and Lynch where the two are throwing these little jabs at each other. On the surface, it’s kind of fun to watch, but as it keeps going, it only feels forced. It sort of rubbed me the wrong way.

As for Rami Malek, who I personally awarded a Jackoff during my first ceremony, he sort of plays the typical Bond villain that has a distinguished look to him. He’s got a suit. He’s got this attitude that you would probably only find in the Bond franchise. The way he’s written in some ways feels cliché, but Malek is convincing enough to play the part to perfection. I like the way he’s handled toward the end of the film. The conflict between him, Bond, and other people whose names I won’t mention, added up to make an entertaining, intense, fast-paced finale. When it comes to the finales in the Daniel Craig Bond saga, this might be my favorite. It’s explosive, it’s brutal, and the choices the characters have to make feel like they have some real stakes.

I will admit, I have rarely exposed myself to anything Bond aside from Daniel Craig, so I have nothing much else to compare this movie to. Although I would love to have a big marathon one day where I catch up on all the other flicks in the franchise. But I would say that collectively, the Daniel Craig Bond saga was a success. I had fun watching this conclusion to said saga. I am glad they ended it where they did. If you like the Craig era of James Bond movies, this may be a fun watch for you. I don’t know if you will put it in the same caliber as some of the other installments, but you will probably have a good time with it. I can say I did.

In the end, “No Time To Die” was worth the fifty thousand year wait we had to sit through to see it. I am glad we got a proper goodbye to the Daniel Craig character. The film looks beautiful. The villain, while cliché in certain ways, is effective. This film blends fun and emotion together to positive results, and I would probably watch it again one day. What’s next in Daniel Craig’s career? Well aside from “Knives Out 2,” which I hope Netflix gives a wide theatrical release (PLEASE. That first one was one of the greatest theatrical outings of my life.), we’ll have to see what the future holds. Either way, his Bond run is complete, and it ended in a satisfying way. I’m going to give “No Time to Die” a 7/10.

“No Time to Die” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Just a reminder that this Halloween, Sunday, October 31st, I will be debuting my review for “Ghostbusters,” the classic 1984 film featuring creepy libraries, ghost traps, proton packs, and giant marshmallows. What could be better? Well, let me just remind you, this is all part of my upcoming mini review series titled “Ghostbusters: Before Afterlife,” where I not only review the first “Ghostbusters,” but I will also be talking about “Ghostbusters II” on November 7th. I cannot wait to talk about both films, and not long after, I will be sharing my thoughts on the all new “Ghostbusters” installment, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife, which hits theaters the weekend before Thanksgiving! Which if you’re not from the United States, that’s where turkeys make a plan of attack against humanity to dominate the world.

Also, couple more housekeeping updates… My next review, as far as new releases go, is going to be for “Dune,” my most anticipated film of the year. I have no idea what day that will drop, but I guarantee you will see it by the end of next week. After that, I also have reviews coming for “The French Dispatch” and “Last Night in Soho.” If you want to see this and more on 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 “No Time to Die?” What did you think about it? Or, who do you think should be the next James Bond? In no particular order, I would to throw these names into the ring: Henry Cavill, Tom Hiddleston, and Orlando Bloom. Feel free to use em. Or don’t. Your call. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Snake Eyes (2021): A G.I. Joe Spinoff with Dice, But No Spice

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Snake Eyes” is directed by Robert Schwentke (RED, R.I.P.D.) and stars Henry Golding (Crazy Rich Asians, Last Christmas), Andrew Koji (Warrior, Fast & Furious 6), Úrsula Corberó (The Secret Life of Pets, The Emoji Movie), Samara Weaving (Ready or Not, Bill & Ted Face the Music), and Iwa Uwais (The Raid, Stuber). This film is a spinoff set in the “G.I. Joe” franchise and follows the origin story of Snake Eyes, whose father was murdered during his youth. Since that tragic day, the character seeks to avenge his father as he grows into a full-blown martial arts fighter.

G.I. Joe: The Revenge of Cobra (TV Mini Series 1984) - IMDb

No lie here, I have never watched anything related to “G.I. Joe,” nor have I grown up with the franchise. I have never played with the toys, never bought any of the merch. This was my first “G.I. Joe” anything… Ever. I saw the marketing for this film and quite frankly it was never my in my top block of movies to see this summer. If anything, it may have been closer to somewhere in the middle. The trailers never looked awful, but I cannot say they looked great either. If anything I felt rather indifferent while watching them. That may be partially due to my lack of commitment to the “G.I. Joe” franchise in addition to just simply looking forward to other movies like “The Suicide Squad” more. The trailer that I usually saw over the past few weeks at the theater just felt like it lacked a flavor that could individualize this film from others. It felt kind of cookie cutter and surface level. But if a movie like “Ralph Breaks the Internet” has taught me anything, it is that even movies with not so great trailers can turn out to be watchable.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with “Snake Eyes” as I walked out of the film thinking it was one of the biggest bores of the year.

One of the movies I had the most fun with this year is the new edition of “Mortal Kombat.” It was definitely worth the theater experience and was a fun blend of fantasy, action, and gore. But the real draw for the movie was not that it was constructed perfectly, it was that the film was a product of entertainment before anything else. That film was, unsurprisingly, done by a writing/directing combo who had little experience. The action scenes, while fun, were also cut very quickly. It was just too much going on at once, therefore everything was not presented in maybe the most effective manner. For the case of “Snake Eyes,” the directing/writing team of this film unfortunately have been working for a long time. In fact, the director of “Snake Eyes,” Robert Schwentke, does not have the best track record according to critics in recent years. “R.I.P.D.,” which released in the summer of 2013, has a 12% on Rotten Tomatoes critically, and the audience score is not great either with a 37% total. He also directed the last two “Divergent” movies. I will admit, of the movies that came out in that franchise, I would have to say the first one he did, “Insurgent” is probably my favorite and one of the more visually stunning films of 2015. But I cannot say the same for its sequel, “Allegiant,” which was one of the most horribly paced action films of the last six years. The visuals in that film at times looked like something out of a Wii game!

While “Snake Eyes,” thankfully, is no “Allegiant,” it is also not good. In fact, I am having trouble remembering certain parts of it. But one thing that I do remember is that the main character, gosh the writers did try to make him likable, but it felt weird trying to root for him as he was technically working for the bad guys. Plus, by the end of the movie, there is another character who I think is more of a “hero” than he is.

I will say one thing about the character of Snake Eyes, I do think the guy who plays him is charming. Snake Eyes in this film is played by Henry Golding, who I have not seen a lot of on screen, but I have seen him in a couple things. I do think that after seeing him in “Snake Eyes,” he would be a great leading man in an original Bond-like spy film. By that I mean a spy film where Golding is the one who is front and center on the poster, he carries the movie. I think Golding has that potential. I just wish “Snake Eyes” as a film did the actor, along with others involved, a tad more justice.

This film, at times, just looks plain atrocious. No, seriously, if you want to talk about terribly crafted shots in cinema, look no further. Just watch a scene in the middle featuring Samara Weaving as Scarlet, and no, I’m not exactly talking about the picture above. To call that scene an eyesore would be an understatement. I mean, sorry for the digression, Samara Weaving being an eyesore would be a lie. First off, she is good-looking, on top of being an incredibly talented actress. Just watch “Ready or Not.” Although I do think her performance in this film was not one she’d want on her resume. I don’t think Weaving truly had a chance to showcase the best of her acting abilities.

One of the complaints I have about the action in “Snake Eyes” is that it dives into that trend that was made popular by films like those in the “Bourne” franchise, shaky cam to be specific. You know that thing where they move the camera so rapidly it’s almost like the camera is simulating the beginning of the end of the world? That happens in “Snake Eyes,” and at the worst possible times. Seriously! Sticking with what I said about shaky cam, there is literally a scene in the movie where Scarlet walks down a hall and the camera is moving all over the place! It’s so incomprehensible and deranged! Why does someone walking down a hall have to appear as action packed as Snake Eyes trying to slash people to death? Tell me!

This movie, obviously like all others, are made for the purpose of profit. With the COVID-19 pandemic going on, the idea of profit is questionable. Either way, profit for a film like “Snake Eyes” could have meant more than just a success or a sequel. For me, it could have gotten me more into the “G.I. Joe” franchise. I’m not saying I will never watch another “G.I. Joe” movie, but “Snake Eyes” did not make me want a sequel, and I was just too uninterested to say that I will go back and dive deeper into this franchise’s source material or other spinoffs. I think “Snake Eyes” obviously would have done better without a pandemic, but I think even without one, the movie would still struggle to justify franchise expansion. My first thought when I saw the trailer for “Snake Eyes,” regardless of how well put together the trailer was, happened to be “Okay, whatever.” My first thought after seeing the movie “Snake Eyes” was, “Ehhh….” Yep, I don’t think I want to see a sequel at this point.

In the end, “Snake Eyes” is not an eye-roller, but it’s also not a high roller. Again, this is my first dive into the “G.I. Joe” franchise, so as a newbie, maybe I chose a poor place to start. At the same time though, first impressions matter. It’s like trying to get someone into “The Simpsons.” Because that series has evolved so much and has continued to remain a part of our popular culture that as newer pieces of it releases, the differences between the new and old content begin to become noticeable. Do we go with glitchy animation and classic humor? Do we go with hi-def episodes and the mocking of modern trends? Do we go with “The Simpsons Movie?” There’s a lot to pick from! But all things considered, “Snake Eyes” was not my cup of joe. I’m going to give “Snake Eyes” a 4/10.

“Snake Eyes” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I also want to let everyone know that my next review is going to be for the all new Disney theme park ride-based film, “Jungle Cruise.” I just watched the movie last Thursday and I will have my thoughts hopefully shared by the end of the week. Speaking of the end of the week, I want to let everyone know that I will be seeing “The Suicide Squad” this Saturday and I will have my review for it up sometime next week!

Staying on the topic of next week, stay tuned for Monday, August 9th, because I will be starting the all new review series, “Revenge of the Nerds: Nerds in Review.” This is a series that I personally felt has been long overdue given my attachment to these movies, or more notably the first one, in addition to “King of the Nerds,” the reality competition series inspired by the film franchise given how it is hosted by two of the actors who appear in the movies, Robert Carradine and Curtis Armstrong. I cannot wait to share this series with you as we continue celebrating 5 years of Scene Before!

If you want to see this and more on 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 “Snake Eyes?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite spinoff? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wrath of Man (2021): Jason Statham Protects Money and His Life from Getting Snatched

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wrath of Man” is directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch, The Gentlemen) and stars Jason Statham (Furious 7, Safe), Holt McCallany (Alien 3, Mindhunter), Jeffrey Donovan (J. Edgar, LBJ), Josh Hartnett (Penny Dreadful, 40 Days and 40 Nights), Chris Reilly (The Last Post, Game of Thrones), Laz Alonso (Battle of the Year, The Boys), Raúl Castillo (Looking, We the Animals), DeObia Oparei (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Dumbo), Eddie Marsan (V For Vendetta, Ray Donovan), and Scott Eastwood (Suicide Squad, Snowden) in a film about a man who recently joined a cash truck company and is responsible for moving lots of money around Los Angeles on a frequent basis. After an unexpected incident, H wants revenge over his son’s death.

“Wrath of Man” is a movie that I nearly slept on. But with advertising for it picking up in recent times, I decided to go see it Mother’s Day weekend as it was one of the bigger films out at the time. To be quite frank, I REALLY did not know what to expect. I thought this film would be okay, but I have recently been reflecting back to a time in recent memory when my dad and I went to see “Godzilla vs. Kong.” The trailer for “Wrath of Man” came up and he said that he would probably wait until this comes out on television to watch it. I somewhat agreed as it seemed like a somewhat standard action film starring Jason Statham, but at the same time, I feel like as one who has devoted himself to the industry, I had to see this for myself as it did have Guy Ritchie’s name on it. At the same time though, even though I have not seen every Guy Ritchie film, the ones that I have seen have not specifically impressed me. “Snatch” is wonderfully paced, but I honestly don’t even remember it. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is nice to look at, but also forgettable. “The Gentlemen” was too fast and too boring. It’s amazing how many people complained about “Tenet” being the hardest 2020 movie to understand when everything is flying in your face and down your throat lickety split in “The Gentlemen.” God, that movie almost gives me a headache the more I think about it. But was “Wrath of Man” worth watching? Is it something that is worth waiting for?

Cinematically, it is marvelous. The cinematography is some of the best of the year so far, and the opening sequence of the film put me right in. But other than that, it is your basic action flick starring Jason Statham. I am not the biggest fan of Guy Ritchie films, but much like how I have noticed distinctive styles from directors like Quentin Tarantino, Zack Snyder, and Wes Anderson, I feel like one of the highlights of Guy Ritchie films like “Snatch,” specifically a flair that feels like something only Guy Ritchie could provide, is missing. This really just feels like a run of the mill action film that almost crosses the threshold for cable TV background noise.

In fact, just for context, it has been nearly a month since I went out to watch this film. I remember some of it, but the more I reflect on it, the more disposable it feels. I do like some things about “Wrath of Man.” The concept of the film, while definitely not the highlight, is intriguing. Because the main character works for a company that deals with carrying around significant amounts of money, and because money is something that we as human beings somehow equate to happiness, even though there are times where we shouldn’t, it packs a bit of stakes into the story from the getgo. The other thing I like in this film is the music, and I do not mean the score. I have nothing bad to say about it, but nothing really good either. It gets the job done. What I really like about the film is there is this one song that plays at a point, specifically Folsom Prison Blues by Johnny Cash, and ever since I heard it not only in the trailers for this film, but in the actual movie, I have the tune from it nearly ingrained in my mind. It’s almost like second nature to me at times. This sort of reminds me of another film, specifically “Thor: Ragnarok,” which despite how I think it is overrated, I will say one of the positives is that the film managed to successfully ingrain Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” into my head from one moment to another.

When I say that this is a basic action flick starring Jason Statham, I am not lying. There are elements that encapsulate that notion, but I am not saying it is a bad movie, and I think part of it is because of how Jason Statham handles his performance. Statham is, based on what I have seen from him, not exactly the most Shakespearean of actors working today, but he has this range that makes him one of the more attractive individuals for action movies. He his this gritty tone from him, one he has also shown in movies like those in the “Fast & Furious” franchise, that he also brings into “Wrath of Man.” Is he arguably playing himself? That is difficult to say, but I think for Statham, I think this comparison is kind of like Kevin Hart. I say so because I love Kevin Hart, even though he plays some incarnation of himself in almost every movie he is in. At the same time though, in the case of Hart, it is not a bad thing, because Hart has a great personality and he does his best to sell that with each go. So if Statham continues down this road where he keeps playing an incarnation of himself, I would be worried for his range, but if he keeps entertaining audiences, I will not be completely disappointed.

Without spoilers, the other main thing I really like from “Wrath of Man” is the ending. This film has a way of splitting different chapters or acts, and I think they did a really good job at setting the tone for the last chapter with the name. Now I had no idea what any of it would mean or what context the name would provide, but when I saw it play out on screen, it felt rather satisfying. I think it was a well written climax overall and I would say that Guy Ritchie did an excellent job at helming it. While it is not my favorite climax in film history, it is definitely one of the better ones I have seen in recent memory.

In the end, “Wrath of Man” is pretty entertaining, but it does come with some basics that make the story and walkthrough of the film feel somewhat familiar. In fact, parts of it kind of reminded me of the recent film titled “Honest Thief” starring Liam Neeson. Although, I will admit, the way Jason Statham carries the film makes it all worthwhile. It almost feels like there are select scenes written with him specifically in mind, which is a good thing if you ask me. Would I watch “Wrath of Man” again? Not instantaneously, but I would not shy away from it either. If I do not buy the Blu-ray, I would at least give it a quick glimpse if it shows up on a cable network. For all I know, it may be worth your time as well. I’m going to give “Wrath of Man” a respectable 7/10.

Thanks for reading this review! As you may have noticed, I have been outrageously busy creating a full week of “Star Wars” content through my 7 Days of Star Wars event. This has been a pleasure to work on, even though there may have been moments where I wanted to pull out my hair because of how painstaking it may have been to meet certain deadlines, but if you want to check out those reviews, the links are listed below. I hope you enjoy the reviews as much as I enjoyed creating them.

THE PHANTOM MENACE: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/23/star-wars-episode-i-the-phantom-menace-1999-worst-for-chronologically-first/

ATTACK OF THE CLONES: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/24/star-wars-episode-ii-attack-of-the-clones-2002-a-revisit-to-my-first-star-wars-movie/

REVENGE OF THE SITH: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/25/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith-2005-my-favorite-star-wars-prequel-ever/

STAR WARS/A NEW HOPE: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/26/star-wars-1977-an-ageless-adventure/

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/27/the-empire-strikes-back-1980-i-love-you/

RETURN OF THE JEDI: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/28/return-of-the-jedi-1983-i-see-the-good/

THE FORCE AWAKENS: https://flicknerd.com/2021/05/29/star-wars-the-force-awakens-2015-the-biggest-blast-in-the-galaxy/

ROGUE ONE: https://flicknerd.com/2016/12/16/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-a-movie-built-on-hope/

THE LAST JEDI: https://flicknerd.com/2017/12/15/star-wars-episode-viii-the-last-jedi-2017-another-year-another-star-wars-movie/

SOLO: https://flicknerd.com/2018/05/25/solo-a-star-wars-story-2018-somehow-this-star-wars-movie-exists/

THE RISE OF SKYWALKER: https://flicknerd.com/2019/12/20/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019-the-final-word-in-the-story/

But speaking of reviews, I have plenty of reviews for new movies coming soon including “Profile,” “Army of the Dead,” “A Quiet Place Part II,” and I will also be seeing “In the Heights” tomorrow so I will have my thoughts on that too. I do not have any set days, but my next review should be up by Saturday at the latest, so stay tuned. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account, and don’t forget to check out the Facebook page so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Wrath of Man?” What did you think about it? Or, of the four collaborations between Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham, which is your favorite? I’ve only seen this one and “Snatch,” so… I don’t know if I should participate. Either way, if you do want to participate, leave your thoughts in the comments section! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!