“Flow” is directed by Gints Zilbalodis (Away, Oasis) and is an animated film featuring no voice actors and no dialogue. This film is about a stray cat whose home is devastated by a great flood. After finding refuge on a boat, the feline must team up with different kinds of animals and cooperate with them despite everyone’s differences.
I saw the trailer for “Flow” once when I was in the cinema. Specifically, when I was watching one of my favorite movies of the year, “Look Back.” The film looked different but wonderfully simple. I am not much a cat person, nor an animal person really. Nevertheless, I was intrigued. But I almost forgot about it until it came out. I saw this film on December 21st, the same weekend that another big cat movie was coming out, “Mufasa: The Lion King.” I had no interest in supporting yet another one of Disney’s live-action remakes. 2016’s “Jungle Book”-aside, which has truly stunning visual effects, none of them really interested me. So I decided to go see “Flow” instead since I had the time. I have not heard a single bad thing about this movie before I went in, so naturally I should like this movie right?…
Of course! Ladies and gentlemen, whatever hype comes your way regarding “Flow,” believe it. This movie is amazing!
“Flow” is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is up there. It is certainly one of the best animated movies of the year. If it ends up taking some of the Best Animated Feature categories during the awards shows this season, I will applaud its victory. My top 10 BEST movies of the year is coming within the next couple weeks or so, and right now in terms of animations, “Flow” belongs in the big three and has a chance of getting on the list, or at least an honorable mention. You have “Flow,” the recently mentioned “Look Back,” and the Hollywood-produced flick “The Wild Robot.” When it comes to that last film, “Flow” has some striking similarities to it. For one thing, both heavily involve animals. Granted, the animals are utilized in significantly different ways. “The Wild Robot” uses animals as secondary characters, and they are voiced by people. As for “Flow,” not only do the animals lack human voices, they are literally the only characters in this movie. No humans, no robots, no aliens. I mean, humans are animals. Still, I am sure many of you have the common sense to understand my point. Both films even present a possible reality that society could face if we are not careful enough. Both films seem to imply that mankind has ruined the earth with our own activities and did not do enough to deal with climate change. There are scenes in each picture where you can see risen water levels, particularly around manmade structures and buildings. In fact, as established previously, the film is about a cat trying to survive after a great flood.
Another similarity I can state is that I have iffy thoughts on the animation. Although I will be fair to “Flow” because it is not produced at as high of a budget as say a DreamWorks or Illumination movie, therefore I can forgive the film’s cheap look every once in a while. That said, there are times where it does look cheap. I will compliment the animation for its vibrant color palette and smooth feel. That said, if were to take certain frames out of context, I would say those frames could end up feeling cheap. At the same time, however, considering the budget of this movie, €3.5 million, which translates to $3.6 million, the animation does present a decent amount of detail. The animation style of this film, even though it feels minimalistic, is by no means bad. It is actually somewhat lifelike. If these animals were in our world, I would buy them if they had a few more specks of detail added to their bodies. There were also several shots in the movie that put me into the frame, not just because of the detail on display, but because of how long such shots went on. Some moments of this film kind of reminded me of action scenes from “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Atomic Blonde,” or “Zombieland: Double Tap,” where the sequence is all done in a way to make things look as if it were a single shot. “Flow” has one or two great shots that go on for an extended time. Safe to say, I was captivated.
Speaking of things that are lifelike, I admire this movie’s unique approach to have no spoken dialogue. Literally the only utterances in this film are animal sounds. This is an animated movie, and I know that these kinds of films often do well with children. There were children at my screening for the record. Although I wonder how this particular film is going to sit with the children who end up watching it. In films like these, where animals dominate the cast, children are often used to seeing them speak our own languages. I think a film like this could be a good watch for children if you want to give them a challenge. The film never “tells” the audience what it is about. It trusts the audience to understand what is happening. Even if you were to present this film to a child and they do not quite understand what is happening, I am sure that they will like watching the animals. I am sure they will enjoy the spectacle. I think there are things that they can appreciate. Although if this film were to get repeat viewings, they might pick up more as they rewatch it. I often talk about how accessible Pixar movies are not just for children, but also adults. “Flow” is in the same boat. I think this is a great movie for all ages that does not resort to immature gags or tired humor. Kind of like Pixar’s “Wall-E,” very little is said in the movie, but the film itself has a lot to say regarding our future, and offers an exciting adventure at the same time.
As I said before, I am not an animal person. Therefore, it should also not surprise you that I am not a pet person. However, I have been around dogs extensively so I know some of the realistic tendencies that were on display from those specific characters during the movie. I think dog owners will appreciate those being in the film. I think if you are a pet owner and you watch this movie, or at the very least, if you have been around these animals for extended periods of time, you will be able to appreciate this film for the little actions it sprinkles in the script here and there.
In the end, “Flow” is a must see movie that ranks as one of the best animations of the year. The style is sometimes iffy, but also kind of charming. The film has a lively adventure, great score, and ultimately, something for everyone. If you do not mind movies without dialogue, this should definitely be a priority on your movie to-do list. I have no clue on what the replay value for this movie will be, but I think that “Flow” is a movie that everyone should watch at least once. I am going to give “Flow” a 9/10.
“Flow” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Ladies and gentlemen, we are down to the final three movies I saw in theaters in 2024! My next reviews are going to be for “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” Once these reviews are done, it is time once again for the end of the year countdowns! Look forward to my top 10 WORST movies of 2024 and my top 10 BEST movies of 2024, coming to Scene Before next year. If you want to see these posts 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 “Flow?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite animated movie you saw this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is directed by Jeff Fowler, who also directed the previous “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies. This film stars Jim Carrey (Batman Forever, The Mask), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, The Afterparty), Krysten Ritter (Veronica Mars, Gilmore Girls), Shemar Moore (S.W.A.T., Criminal Minds), Colleen O’Shaughnessey (Digimon, Naruto), James Marsden (X-Men, Superman Returns), Tika Sumpter (Mixed-ish, Ride Along), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), and Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick). This film follows Sonic and his team as they face a new enemy, Shadow the Hedgehog. When the team realizes the potential dangers of Shadow’s power, they choose to band together with an unlikely ally to stop him.
Video game adaptations have had an iffy history at best. Yes, on the television side you have hits like “The Last of Us” and “Arcane,” but as far as movies go, there is not a single title I imagine most people would consider to be a masterpiece. Sure, the 1995 “Mortal Kombat” had some charm to it. It is definitely not a horrible movie. Same goes with 2023’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” which I have no plans to watch ever again, but I would be lying to you if I said it was inferior to 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.” adaptation.
The “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies have made for an interesting franchise. And I do believe “interesting” is the best word to use in this case. Because neither of the two movies I have seen up to this point have been bad. I thought the first one in particular is quite fun and offers replay value. It has a simple but effective story. Ben Schwartz is a great pick to voice Sonic. Jim Carrey as Robotnik may go down as some of the best casting of the decade. The climax is really fun. Overall, it is a good time for all ages. Then we get to “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” which maintains some of the positives of the original. You have good visual effects, nice sound design, and a pretty cool third act. But the film also drags because there is an abysmally irritating wedding subplot that makes no sense. There were other things to make up for it. I even gave the film a 6/10 in my review. But that score was pretty generous if you asked me. For the record, I bought the original “Sonic the Hedgehog” and watched it at home after checking it out in the cinema. The same cannot be said for the sequel.
They say you are only as good as your last project. And while I had a positive experience with “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” I still found it disappointing. So my expectations for “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” while they were not sitting right at rock bottom, were also not that high. But those expectations shot up with a pretty solid marketing campaign. I thought by the end it gave away a little too much, but the trailers were funny and promised something a little darker than the other two installments. I was ultimately onboard.
So what did I think? Eh, the movie’s fine.
“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is in fact a step up from “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” But the movie is also nowhere near as good as the original “Sonic the Hedgehog.” Though if I had to name a positive for not only this movie, but all three movies so far, it is that they maintain a sense of consistency. They all feel like they belong in the same universe and work well off each other. As a trilogy, the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies are not quite as good as say “Lord of the Rings.” But just like “Lord of the Rings,” the movies feel perfectly interconnected. Coincidentally, both of these trilogies are done through a singular vision. All the “Lord of the Rings” movies were directed by Peter Jackson, and all the “Sonic the Hedgehog” installments were helmed by Jeff Fowler. If there is anyone who is perhaps responsible for “Sonic’s” consistency, Fowler is perhaps the most likely candidiate. They even got the same writers for all three movies. Pat Casey and Josh Miller wrote the first movie together. The two ended up coming back for the sequels along with John Whittington.
This leads me to perhaps the most robust assertion I could perhaps make about “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you really liked “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel, you are going to like “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you find those first two movies to be bad, then chances are you will feel the same way about this latest installment. As for me, I made it clear I liked the first two movies. I did not love either of them, in fact, I would even say “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is barely passable, so to have the third one find itself on the lower end of my positive scale comes as almost no surprise whatsoever.
One of my complaints about the second movie was the dialogue. For the record, the dialogue in the second film feels similar to the first. But every other minute Sonic is spewing out some random pop culture joke or some semblance of words that come close to such a thing and not many of them land. This film seems to maintain my dialogue distaste. There is a lot of obnoxious chit chat and a lot of the lines feel overly cartoony. Yes, I know this film has animated characters. But even for something like this, it comes off as overblown. That said, the film does still get the occasional laugh from our hero characters.
However, the biggest laughs in the film, perhaps unsurprisingly, come from Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is back in this film doing double duty. Not only is he back for his third portrayal of Doctor Ivo Robotnik, but he is also playing his grandfather, Professor Gerald Robotnik. Seeing Jim Carrey play both of these characters at the same time makes for a weird, wacky, and fun experience like no other. I think Carrey is the best part of these movies. I say that even though I do think his material in the second film hindered his performance a bit. As for this third film, it is nice to see Carrey getting some funny, ludicrous material to work with. Every time he was on screen, I had a grin on my face.
This film also introduces a new hedgehog character, Shadow. Keanu Reeves plays the role, which I think is a great choice. Having heard the character’s voice in certain video games, this is fairly decent match. Also when it comes to Shadow’s design, Reeves’ voice seems to mesh well with the character. But as much as I liked the trailers for this film, my one worry was that Shadow would sound too much like Keanu Reeves was playing himself. I felt a lot of John Wick-isms in his execution. I like “John Wick,” but one problem I have with celebrity voice casting is that the celebrities sound so much like themselves that they fail to blend in with their character. Having seen Shadow, I can say there are scenes where Keanu clearly sounds like he is playing himself, but by no means is he phoning it in. I saw a little bit of Keanu in the performance, yet simultaneously, I saw all Shadow if that makes any sense.
Also to a certain degree, I liked seeing Shadow’s backstory. While I am one to complain about this movie being a bit obnoxious at times, I think Shadow’s backstory occasionally makes for some solid visual storytelling. There is even some decent dialogue. The film also develops a nice little commonality between Sonic and Shadow, particularly how the two were able to find humans with whom they became best friends sometime after their arrival to earth. We saw this previously with Sonic and Tom Wachowski, AKA “Donut Lord.” Shadow seems to develop a similar connection with a young girl named Maria.
If I were a young kid watching this movie, I would probably have a great time with it. There is a lot of action, adventure, and humor. This would probably be a frequent watch in my house if I were 9 or 10 years old. As a 25 year old, I am trying to think about what this movie teaches our children. Sure, it is over the top and zany to no end. But I think it delivers positive lessons. Shadow’s presence in the movie makes me think lots of children will be introduced to the potential negatives of animal testing. On the hero’s side of the spectrum, the film also showcases the importance of teamwork and the complications of making the right choice.
I talked about how I think “Sonic 3” is a step up from “Sonic 2,” and there is another improvement regarding this film I have not mentioned yet, the humans. For one thing, the humans’ involvement in “Sonic 3” raise far fewer questions as to the logistics of the plot. There are some moments of the movie in general that I thought were a bit far-fetched, but still. We also tend to focus more on Sonic and his crew this time around as opposed to the humans. Granted, Tom and Maddie do play a significant role in the film. Though their use throughout the runtime is much more pleasing compared to the last film. This film is also noticeably tighter than “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” Though it should come as no surprise considering “Sonic 3” is 13 minutes shorter. But they seemed to have trimmed out the fluff so to speak. In terms of plot, characters, and overall details, the film is definitely more complicated than this franchise’s kickstarter. But by no means does the film feel terribly overstuffed or boring. There is never a dull moment in “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” There are slower moments, there are cheesy moments. However not once did I want to fall asleep watching this movie.
I said before that one of my complaints about this movie is that it is a little overly cartoony. And if you watch cartoons, you would know that the characters from one episode to the next behave very similarly to how they do in the last. That makes sense for consistency’s sake. You can even say the same thing in other television shows done in live-action, but it is especially noticeable in cartoons. I watched this movie and I noticed not only are Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles very similar to how they behave in the second movie, Knuckles in particular almost feels too similar. Sure, we learn that apparently he has picked up some pop culture knowledge. We see him make a “Pokemon” joke early on in the film. Even with that in mind, Knuckles still sounds like a fish out of water when it comes to concepts with which many earthlings would happen to understand. I do not know exactly how long this movie takes place after “Sonic 2,” but if Knuckles is still behaving the way he is, the timejump cannot be that far. At least for logic’s sake I hope that is the case.
Throughout the review we have talked about just how consistent this property has been. This has resulted in positives like Jim Carrey continuing to kill it as Robotnik and some action-packed third acts. But it has also resulted in negatives like a lack of character development or nonsensical scenes. There is one more consistency that if this franchise were to continue for some time, I hope gets addressed. By the end of this film, I left feeling the stakes in this franchise are minimal. I am not going to dive into detail, but the “Sonic the Hedgehog” franchise somewhat feels like the “Fast & Furious” franchise for a younger audience. Yes, both are action-packed films involving speed and globetrotting missions. But the further we get into the franchise, the more I am convinced that several characters are perhaps either invincible or lucky.
I understand that the “Sonic” franchise is a hit with younger viewers and the people behind it would therefore not want to make it too dark. But this franchise keeps adding new faces that it just makes you wonder when the heck it is going to suddenly get rid of one of them. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a decent moneymaker for Paramount. As good as it may be now to have all the movies feel the same, it also risks running the franchise into the ground and having it feel bland. We have seen this problem with the Michael Bay-directed “Transformers” franchise, another popular product of Paramount. While the movies tend to have slight differences, they for the most part come off as carbon copies of one another. Despite my complaint, if Jeff Fowler and the same writing team were to come back for “Sonic the Hedgehog 4,” I would be onboard. They have a proven track record, even if it is not the greatest. Although I think it would be fun to see someone put their own creative spin into the franchise.
Also, one more consistency to bring up, this film has some extra material during the credits. There is a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene. Stick around for both of them.
In the end, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is not a bad movie. In fact, by the standards of video game movies, it is one of the better ones. Despite that, the movie is still not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is a step up from the last “Sonic” outing, but still not good enough to rival the original. Also, as far as video game movies go, I think it is slightly more watchable than “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” This feels more like a movie compared to that film, which literally just comes off as an hour and a half of nonstop easter eggs and references just for the sake of forced nostalgia within a generic storyline. The voicework in this film, per usual, is top notch. The human characters are a noticeable improvement compared to the previous installment. Shadow is a nice addition to the franchise. But the jokes are off and on, the dialogue is a little too obnoxious, and I know this is a movie about a talking hedgehog, but even with that in mind, there are things in this film that feel a tad far-fetched. If you like the last two movies, this is definitely for you. If not, maybe go see something else. I am going to give “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” a 6/10.
“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for my thoughts on films including “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” 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 “Sonic the Hedgehog 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is directed by Kenji Kamiyama (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Blade Runner: Black Lotus) and stars Brian Cox (Succession, X2: X-Men United), Gaia Wise (A Walk in the Woods, The Chelsea Detective), Luke Pasqualino (Skins, The Musketeers), and Miranda Otto (Talk to Me, War of the Worlds). This film is set 183 years before the original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy and is about the tale of Helm Hammerhand (Cox) and how his family went about defending themselves against an army of Dunlendings.
Just a warning for those who need to know… I have not read a single “Lord of the Rings” book. I have not lacked desire to read the books, I just never got around to it. But I have seen every single Peter Jackson-directed “Lord of the Rings” film, including “The Hobbit” trilogy. I enjoyed all those movies. There are even a couple of those movies I would even considerto be amongst the greatest of all time. If you have not seen these movies, you are missing out and owe it to yourself to give them a watch at least once in your life.
It has been ten years since the last theatrically released “Lord of the Rings” film, specifically “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.” As a fan of these movies, I thought they had a good run, but I would have been fine knowing that is all we were getting. I am well aware on the TV side, “The Rings of Power” is doing well on Prime Video in terms of finding an audience after a couple seasons, but I cannot give my thoughts on it since I have not seen a single episode. Though when they announced a new animated “Lord of the Rings” film was coming, I was not against the idea, but my reaction to it reminds me of the reaction I had when I first heard about “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.” My thought was… “Okay then.” I was not completely uninterested, but I also was not going to be first in line to check it out.
Then I got the recommendation of my life, and I swear on my unborn children, this is a true story.
I went to a taping of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” in October and during a Q&A, Colbert picked me to ask him a question. I was one of three people. I asked him, “Have you seen any good movies lately?” To which he responds, “Yes.”
…
Following the audience’s laughter, he asks, “Would you like to know which ones?”
I say, “If you would like to tell me about them.”
That is when he recommends this movie. He saw it early. This is no surprise considering Colbert has established himself as a J.R.R. Tolkien and “Lord of the Rings” fanboy. He told the audience and I that the film matches the feel that he got out of the Tolkien books and the Peter Jackson films. Granted, I was aware that he was going to be hosting a panel for the film at New York Comic Con the next day, so this may as well be a plug for the movie.
That said, if it was good enough for Stephen Colbert, it was good enough for me.
So without dillydallying any longer, I thought the movie was fine.
As far as “The Lord of the Rings” film franchise goes, I think this is the weakest of the films I have seen so far. This is not to say it is bad. If anything it is just that most of the other ones are so good that this film easily pales in comparison to them. It is like when I watched “Lightyear.” I thought almost every “Toy Story” movie was a masterpiece of animation and storytelling, then we get to the “Lightyear” spinoff, which was fun but it did not have the impact on me that the “Toy Story” movies did.
I will admit, Colbert was correct on one thing. Tonally, this film feels like it belongs in Jackson’s Middle-earth. That said, it does so maybe to an unhealthy degree. The film is a nice welcoming back to that universe with the familiar title cards and Howard Shore’s music. For the record, Howard Shore did not do the music for this movie, it was instead composed by Stephen Gallagher, who I thought did an okay job. I am not going to go back to listen to the score on my own time unlike some of Shore’s work, but I thought it fit the movie. There are also some pieces of fan service that have ties to the Jackson films, including one towards the end that involves someone’s voice that audiences have not heard in a new film for a long, long time. I thought it was a clever addon towards the film’s conclusion.
“The War of the Rohirrim” is done in the style of an anime. You have this colorful 2D look to the film with a rough pace to it. When I watched the trailer for this film previously, I thought it looked cool. Having seen the movie, I would say it is cool to a degree, but also kind of underwhelming. There are many scenes where we see some vibrant colors, finely detailed characters, and some nice landscapes. But there are other scenes that either lack detail, feel slapped together, done on the cheap, or flat. They lack a sense of realism. Now I know you can get away with a lack of realism in animation. But this lack of realism honestly equals a lack of flair at times.
The same can be said for the actual journey of the film and what we see our hero, specifically Hera, go through. I will give credit for the film for one thing, nearly each and every scene, even if it is subtle, oozes with conflict. Who is gonna live? Who is gonna die? Will our hero make it? The film is a lot of things, but uneventful is not one of them. Speaking of Hera, Gaia Wise does a great job voicing her. Wise’s resume is not huge, but I would not mind seeing her in more projects. Though as I watched the movie, the progression of the story seemed to lack unpredictability or a sense of originality. The structure feels familiar. Granted, even the better “Lord of the Rings” films are not that complex when it comes to the plot as they are with the world involving said plot. Most of the films are essentially about the characters navigating from point A to point B. This is not as much the case with “The War of the Rohirrim,” which spends most of its time around one specific portion of Middle Earth. The scope feels a bit smaller. But the earlier films were simply much more well executed in terms of bringing the best out of a familiar journey. Not to mention, for the time they came out, Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films had monumental special effects, whereas the animation for this film, while definitely different, lacks innovation.
“The War of the Rohirrim” is a standalone “Lord of the Rings” project. There are no continuations planned for it. By that logic, this should make “The War of the Rohirrim” a good watch in the franchise if you do not want to worry about keeping up with the greater lore. While this is true, I will also say if you are a more casual “Lord of the Rings” fan or someone looking for a place to start, I do not think “The War of the Rohirrim” is a priority. Is it a good movie? Yes. If anything, while the negatives stand out, I think I lean a little more positive when it comes to my overall verdict. While Hera’s journey has cliches, it is still engaging. The soundwork for the film is quite solid. Tonally, this film is very good. If you love Brian Cox’s voice, you will hear plenty of it in this film. Every time Cox speaks as Helm Hammerhand, he steals the scene. If you are a “Lord of the Rings” casual, there is a chance you might walk out of the movie thinking it is a thumbs up. If you are perhaps a more hardcore fan of the franchise, there could be something more for you. But I also think most people who watch this movie will end up saying that it is not as good as any of the films in Jackson’s original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. As for ranking this film against “The Hobbit” trilogy, I am not sure. I know it has its fans, and I am one of them. I personally find “Desolation of Smaug” to be one of my favorite movies. But if it were a Friday night, I ordered a pizza, and I needed a movie to go with it, I might put on “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” which I thought to be the weakest of the “Lord of the Rings” installments for a long time, before watching “The War of the Rohirrim” again.
Although speaking of “An Unexpected Journey,” this brings me to a negative I sometimes found with both that film and “The War of the Rohirrim.” As engaged as I was in the journey, I wish I found myself more attached to some of the characters. I do not think I am going to remember some of these characters’ names a couple years from now. If you want a good movie, watch “The War of the Rohirrim.” But if you are looking for the best possible “Lord of the Rings” experience, Peter Jackson might have some better options available.
In the end, “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” was a fine time at the movies, especially compared to the film this one opened against, “Kraven the Hunter.” Both of these films are flops at this point. Neither of them likely have any chance of making their budgets back. But if you had to pick between one of these losers to watch in the cinema right now, then “The War of the Rohirrim” is definitely the winner. The film is a fun adventure that sometimes comes off as cliche. Some of these cliches are handled well, others not so much. The cast is likable, even if I am probably not going to remember some of these characters in a couple years. The action scenes have their moments. And for the most part, I was engaged in the journey. This film is not playing in a ton of places right now, but if you have a cinema loyalty subscription like AMC A-List or Regal Unlimited, use it for this film. Either that or find a showtime at matinee price. Even though I think the film looks cheap at times, the sound design makes up for it. There are moments where the film does become wonderfully obnoxious and immersive. I am going to give “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” a 6/10.
“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is now playing in theaters and is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” and “Babygirl.” 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 Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power?” For those who have seen it, tell me your thoughts! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Nightbitch” is directed by Marielle Heller (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) and stars Amy Adams (Enchanted, Arrival), Scott McNairy (Speak No Evil, Monsters), Arleigh Snowden, Emmett Snowden, Zoë Chao (Strangers, The Afterparty), Mary Holland (Happiest Season, The Big Door Prize), and Ella Thomas (Surrogates, Nina). This film is based on a book of the same name and is about a stay at home mother who occasionally transforms into a dog at night.
Amy Adams is a fine actress with a ton of range. Doing everything from family flicks like “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,” to crime films like “American Hustle,” to comic book movies like “Man of Steel,” to modern sci-fi classics like “Arrival.” Now she is taking on her latest role, a woman who occasionally turns into a dog.
Judging by the film’s epically awesome title, it is easy to assume “Nightbitch” will not have the family friendliness of say “The Shaggy Dog,” which sees its main character also transforming into a canine from time to time. Whether you like the various editions of “The Shaggy Dog” or not, I think most people who know about it can admit that the concept is at the very least, clever. That is also a word I would use to describe the hook of “Nightbitch.”
This brings me to my first gripe regarding the film. The whole concept of the main character turning into a dog feels rather wasted, especially considering how much I heard about that hook going into the film. Having seen the film, I understand that seeing the main character turning into a dog is not necessarily what it is about. There is more to it. But I think if you are going to dive into that concept, you might try to expand it just a little. For the most part, “Nightbitch” is about a woman’s journey and struggles that come with being a mother. I am fine with that. I will also say the concept is handled well. But if you have this idea of occasional dog transformations, maybe do a little more than one or two scenes featuring a canine version of Adams and having her occasionally interact with other dogs every once in a while.
The film, in more ways than one, effectively turns Amy Adams into a dog in a figurative sense. This is especially noticeable when her character is interacting with her child. Though when it comes to the advertised literal sense of Adams becoming a dog, that is where the film disappoints. In fact, having seen this film now, part of me is curious about what it would have been like to go into this movie blind. Maybe I set my expectations too high. Maybe I would have been caught off guard by certain scenes in the film.
I will compliment the film for its point of view on parenting, particularly motherhood. This is far from a happy go lucky take on the concept. Amy Adams does a good job encapsulating the stress her character goes through from scene to scene. If I have one thing to say though, this film is based on a 2021 novel, and for all I know, the novel is great. But “Nightbitch” definitely feels more like literature at times than it does cinema. For one thing, we spend much of the movie hearing Amy Adams’ character, simply named “Mother,” talking inside of her head. There is not a rule saying you cannot have characters talk inside their head. Heck, there is a movie from earlier this year called “Boy Kills World” where the voice inside the main character’s head is probably my favorite part. That said, like any other movie, “Nightbitch” is presented in a medium that is traditionally more show than tell. This movie tends to spend a significant amount of time taking the tell approach. Sometimes it works, other times it does not really add anything to the scene. It kind of spells out certain things that I may have already come to realize. In addition to Adams’ narration, the film also contains fourth wall breaks. That said, this is a dark comedy, so I will at least point out that the narration thankfully provides for some laughs.
I think “Nightbitch” will definitely have an audience. I do not know how much staying power this film will have going forward. For all I know, it could do well when it comes to streaming. Though I think mothers in particular will find this film relatable. Even if they love their children or their partner, I think they will pick up something from “Nightbitch” that they can attach to a certain peeve in their lives. This film is not only a solid dive into motherhood and the struggles it can bring, but what such a common concept could take away. It could interfere with career paths, dreams, ambitions, all to continue the human race.
I imagine dads could find the film relatable themselves. There are several moments of the film that I imagine a father, no matter the age of their kid, has experienced. Either when they try to be useful, or when they want some private time with their partner. That said, “Nightbitch” is presented from a mother’s perspective, therefore it will relate to mothers the most. There is even a line out of Adams’ character that I will not cite verbatim, but she is talking to her husband and she mentions she is busy trying to take care of him, in addition to their child. Also keep in mind, I am single and do not have children. So while many opinions are valid when it comes to art, including ones presented in this review, my thoughts on the film could change should I get married or have kids sometime down the road.
The pacing of this film is brisk, although at times a little overly spontaneous. Though I do admire the film’s efforts for packing in as much as it does in such a short runtime. While there are one or two events that definitely almost come in almost out of the blue, the film for the most part maintains a steady, but speedy path from start to finish. Never once was I uninterested or bored. I have to give credit to Marielle Heller and Rachel Yoder for crafting a consistent script. While I would have been more delighted had said script unleashed more of the dog-related hook, it makes for a fine hour and a half at the cinema. Best movie of the year? Far from it. But is it decent? Sure.
In the end, “Nightbitch” is a fairly… PAW-sitive moviegoing experience. The star of the show, figuratively and literally, is Amy Adams, who overdelivers as “Mother.” Yes, she has a ton of narration. Sometimes it is hit or miss, but Adams goes all the way with it. It is not my favorite performance from Adams, but she clearly owns the role. I also think it was a smart choice to have Marielle Heller direct the film. I can say as a man, I do not think I would have done as effective of a job with a story like this. She is also a parent, so that helps too. This film, even if it is based on something else, definitely has a personal touch. It is noticeable in the dialogue and the performances. I would not recommend the film to all audiences, but I am certain it will find an audience regardless. I am going to give “Nightbitch” a 6/10.
I would also like to shout out this film’s director, Marielle Heller, whose directorial outing prior to this film was “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” a film partially centering around Fred Rogers. I must say “Nightbitch” is quite a transition from Heller’s previous film… A wholesome, comforting, feel good drama, to a vulgar, honest, dark comedy. While Heller is not my favorite director working today, I am definitely looking forward to seeing what she does next because like I said about Adams at the start of this review, Heller definitely has range.
“Nightbitch” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Hulu Friday, December 27th.
Thanks for reading this review! Do you have comic book movie fatigue? I don’t! But I just saw “Kraven the Hunter” and I am most certainly having “Sony Spider-Man Schlockiverse” fatigue as we speak. Look forward to that review as long as I do not smash my computer in rage while making it. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” and “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” 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 “Nightbitch?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Amy Adams movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Smile 2” is directed by Parker Finn, who also directed the first “Smile,” starring Sosie Bacon. This sequel stars Naomi Scott (Power Rangers, Aladdin) as a singer by the name Skye Riley. Joining Scott is a cast including Rosemarie DeWitt (La La Land, Poltergeist), Lukas Gage (Love, Victor, You), Miles Gutierrez-Riley (Agatha All Along, The Wilds), Peter Jacobson (House, Colony), Ray Nicholson (Out of the Blue, Panic), Dylan Gelula (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Dream Scenario), Raúl Castillo (Cold Weather, Looking), and Kyle Gallner (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Jennifer’s Body). This film is about a global pop star who experiences strange events while she promotes her tour.
If you have followed Scene Before for the past couple years, you would know that I have been thrilled with the horror genre lately, particularly in 2022. In that year you had one solid horror film after another. “The Black Phone,” “Barbarian,” “X,” “Pearl,” “Nope,” and of course, “Smile.” The last of these films is the feature-length debut from Parker Finn, and it was, deservedly, a huge success at the box office for Paramount. “Smile” even made my top 10 of the year. So naturally I HAD to be excited for the sequel right?
Ehh…
I love “Smile,” but it was a film I thought would be better off as a one and done. Do not get me wrong, I love the concept of “Smile,” and I was at least slightly intrigued to see another take on it. I did not see this sequel coming. Thankfully, Parker Finn is back, and he clearly knew what he was doing the first time around. He created a film that made me feel uneasy, terrified, and riveted. But if you are going to get someone to expand this universe, it might as well be an individual who knows it well. Though name recognition is not good enough. I hope Finn had a solid idea up his sleeve and was not just coming back to slap something together for a quick buck.
Thankfully, I am proud to say that this sequel lives up to the original. There are parts of this movie that I would even say are an improvement from the original. While I was more intrigued by the story of the first film, maybe due to the concept feeling fresh, I found the lead for “Smile 2” to leap off the screen more. Both in terms of her character, and her performance.
“Smile 2” is led by Naomi Scott, who I have not seen in a ton of projects. I know she is particularly famous for her appearance in the 2019 Disney “Aladdin” remake. I have not seen that film. Although I do like her based on what I saw her in leading up to this picture. I thought Scott was a good actress before seeing “Smile 2,” but I had no idea what exactly she was capable of until watching this film. Scott is given a lot to do between channeling a neverending sense of fear, singing, trying to convince others she is not going berserk. I bought into her entire performance. I will also give some credit to the costuming and makeup departments. Scott plays a pop star, and those two departments do a great job at transforming Scott into an artist admired by a sea of fans.
I have not seen the first “Smile” since the theater. I want to watch it again at some point. It could be fun to do a double feature of these films back to back. But kind of like the first film, once it gets to the ending, that is where “Smile 2” becomes as unhinged as it possibly can. This film might not exactly contain my favorite ending of the year. But I could not imagine a more fitting outcome of the story if I tried. Going back to the original “Smile,” I cannot say I remember everything that happens in that film’s climax. Though I will not deny that whatever did happen, made my skin crawl like you would not believe. It is not to say that the rest of the film was not scary. But I specifically remember the feeling I had watching parts of the climax. I felt an equally noticeable sense of discomfort watching the entirety of “Smile 2.” I was scared not just because of what loomed over our protagonist from a supernatural perspective, but also from a pure sanity standpoint. This film to a certain degree repeats concepts from the original in addition to other horror movies, but even these familiar elements feel as if they are done to their maximum potential.
Also with “Smile 2” being a sequel, it follows a cliche that many sequels tend to carry with them, that is to go bigger than its predecessor. I sometimes cite this as a negative in my reviews because while the scope expands, the quality of the story does not. Therefore, bigger does not always mean better. But I felt that the added scope of this film made for a more immersive and better production than the original. The film cost $28 million to make, up from its predecessor’s $17 million. Both budgets are not necessarily high, but the crew behind “Smile 2” clearly threw more money at the screen to give something more visually appealing than what was given in the first “Smile.” The sets feel more grand. The color palette is glossier. Even the look of our main character played by Naomi Scott has more pizzazz. Granted, she is a pop star, so she would require more elaborate outfits and makeup than the original’s lead, Sosie Bacon, who played a therapist.
Though if I have one negative-ish thing to say about the film, it is that it often comes off as a commercial. It is not shot like a commercial. It very much has the look and feel of a movie. But we get numerous glimpses of Paramount Global’s assets in order to further the story including a CBS news network and “The Drew Barrymore Show.” Have you ever watched a Sony movie and noticed them trying to promote their phones? TVs? Headsets? PlayStations? That is kind of what this feels like. In fact, some would even say that this shameless self-promotion is not even the biggest piece of commercialism in the film. It stood out to me, probably because I have a good amount of experience with mass media. But some would even say that Voss Water plays an even bigger role in “Smile 2” in terms of product placement. This did not bother me in particular. If anything, I thought anytime our main protagonist drank water in the movie, those moments properly encapsulated what she was feeling in specific scenes. Did this movie make me want Voss Water? Not really. So as for the effectiveness of this commercial, maybe it will work better for other people. I sound like a Negative Nancy, but if you want me to be real, the product placement here, while noticeable, is not as obnoxious as “Madame Web.”
“Smile 2” has something in common with another sequel from this year, “Inside Out 2.” These are movies that I thought had phenomenal first outings, but I was rather nervous when I found out they were getting sequels. I did not think a follow-up would be as good or worthwhile. I did not find a sequel to be all that necessary compared to other properties out there. But both sequels surprised me and stuck the landing. I think “Smile 2” is more consistent in quality with its predecessor whereas “Inside Out 2” is a noticeable step down, but still a pretty good flick. Another thing these movies have in common… I would not mind seeing a third one. I would especially be happy if Parker Finn comes back to do a threequel, though if someone else has a fresh idea up their sleeve, I would not be opposed to checking it out. But this second film is worth watching. It is not my favorite horror movie of the year. I think “A Quiet Place: Day One” is slightly better when it comes to characterization and overall engagement. But this is a huge win for the franchise, for Parker Finn, and for Paramount. I would love to see more of this property if possible.
In the end, it is safe to say, if you like the first “Smile” movie, chances are you will enjoy the second one. If you are not a fan of the first “Smile” movie, then maybe skip this sequel. I am going back and forth as to which movie I like more. I have to give the first film a lot of credit because it took a clever, crazy idea and turned it into an equally clever, crazy movie. Though I think this second film ups the scares, ups the insanity, ups the acting, and ups the production value. That said, I do think the first film’s story is slightly more engaging, as much as I like the main character and concept of this film as well. Despite how often this movie made me wince, I am definitely all smiles talking about it now. I am going to give “Smile 2” an 8/10.
“Smile 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD. As of this writing the film is available to all Paramount+ and MGM+ subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Smile 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Smile” movies puts a bigger grin on your face? The original? Or the sequel? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
WARNING: Review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view.
“Wicked” is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) and stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Fellow Travelers, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater, Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Marissa Bode, Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones, Pixels), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Thor: Ragnarok). This film is based on a book that inspired a popular Broadway musical and centers around the connection between two students at Shiz University… A misunderstood green woman named Elphaba and a popular girl named Galinda.
“Wicked” is a property that I have heard by name for years. Obviously, I am familiar with some Oz stories, so I know that “Wicked” is connected to that universe. I have seen commercials on television promoting the play when it arrives in my local area. My earliest memory regarding the play has to do with one episode of “Deal or No Deal” I watched when I was 10 years old, when the contestant received an offer from the banker revolving around the play. But I cannot say I have seen the play, nor have I listened to the soundtrack. I have heard decent things about it, I know it is popular, I know people enjoy it. But I have never bothered to check it out. Safe to say, there is a first time for everything.
Perhaps the biggest movie phenomenon in terms of marketing in 2024 so far would have to be “Deadpool & Wolverine.” That film has pushed itself rather hard, gotten so many people looking forward to it, and gotten rather creative with its advertising leading up to its release. Though I say that with a supposed bias because I am definitely the target audience of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” “Wicked” on the other hand, not really. Like any genre, I can appreciate a great musical, but I would not say musicals are my first choice. Nevertheless, I am seeing more than enough promotion for “Wicked,” and I do not think I am alone in this. Though I will admit, like “Deadpool & Wolverine,” there are creative approaches I like regarding “Wicked’s” push. At AMC Theatres, where I usually flock to if I am seeing a movie, they made a reminder for audiences watching whatever film they paid for to follow the traditional rules of moviegoing. As this happens, Jeff Goldblum, who plays the Wizard in the film, says each rule, after which a completely fitting clip of “Wicked” plays.
In fact, this PSA played before my “Wicked” screening as well, which I saw at a Dolby Cinema auditorium at AMC. The video also comes with the rule, “NO SINGING,” which thankfully, my audience followed. Shoutout to my fellow moviegoers for maintaining a respectful atmosphere. But I could tell that I was part of a passionate crowd. There were some enthusiastic responses to certain parts of the film when they came up, I even remember seeing someone below me wearing a witch’s hat. I love when people embrace their inner fan. This is why I often go to conventions because I love those kinds of atmospheres.
Sadly, while “Wicked” clearly has fans, I cannot say I am one of them. I was not one before watching this movie, and I cannot say it turned me into one. This is genuinely one of the most middle of the road movies of the year. One can even argue it is disappointing. Because even as someone who was not the target audience, I could clearly see craftsmanship, love, and effort put into the picture. But there are also some things that have turned me off.
Once again, I am not the target audience for musicals, though I have enjoyed some. In recent years, I have raved about Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” remake time and time again. That said, the songs in this movie, while there are highlights, for the most part, did not really do anything for me. There are some tolerable pieces like “No One Mourns the Wicked,” “Popular,” and of course, “Defying Gravity.” But for the most part, the movie failed to impress me. I thought from the concept, the marketing, and the fantastical universe in which this movie was going to be set, we would get an incredibly vibrant film, but that is not the case.
When it comes to the color palette, that is a spot where “Wicked” falters. The color grading in this film feels pale and wooden for a place that is clearly supposed to be otherworldly. If anything, it kind of looks like a rushed Marvel movie. Do not get me wrong, I love my Marvel movies. But there are a couple titles I where I think the color grading should have been cleaned up a little bit. It looks kind of empty. That said, the film’s look is not all bad. The production design feels grand and epic at times. Oz looks great. The interiors look great. There’s a shot early on showing a massive field of flowers that captivated me. That also leads me to say that I like the film’s camerawork. The framing feels wide and vast, trying to fit as much information as possible from one side of the screen to the other. This film is shot by Alex Brooks, who is no stranger to shooting musicals. In 2021, she shot “Tick, Tick…BOOM!,” which I adored. Months before that movie came out, she was credited for the less enjoyable but still fun “In the Heights,” also directed by Jon M. Chu. Brooks has a good eye for framing and definitely knows how to make shots feel grand, even if there are other aspects that drag such grandeur down.
Although if I had to name my favorite aspects of the film, there are two that come to mind… The leads. The entire film revolves around the relationship between Elphaba and Galinda. Thankfully, this movie casts both of these parts perfectly. For Elphaba, you have Cynthia Erivo, who not only plays her part well, capturing the uniqueness of her character that goes far beyond her looks, but boy can she sing. There is a lot of singing in this film, and admittedly, some of the singing in this film, particularly from multiple characters, sometimes feels out of place. Though it is not “Joker: Folie à Deux” bad. Some of it just feels tacked on if anything. I imagine some would say all of the singing in the film has a point. From my point of view, maybe it fits better on Broadway. I do not know. There are a lot of scenes within the context of a musical that I happened to buy. But there are other songs that either feel slapped together almost unnecessarily, or just plain annoying. But thankfully, Erivo sings all of her songs well, and the same can be said for Ariana Grande, who practically steals every scene she is in. She plays the popular girl type to a tee. She is fantastic. Dare I even say Oscar-worthy. I hope she gets a nomination. Whether it will be for Best Lead Actress or Supporting Actress we will have to see. I know Universal probably does not want Erivo and Grande competing against each other for the same award. The Golden Globe nominees just came out and both performers are in different categories. Even so, Grande is a knockout. There is an otherworldliness to her character that I bought into. She is funny, charming, and perhaps gives one of the best physical performances of the year. There are plenty of other actors in this film that play their individual parts well. I thought Jeff Goldblum was a great choice to play Oz. Michelle Yeoh is commanding as Madame Morrible, and Jonathan Bailey does a good job playing Fiyero Tigelaar.
As said earlier this review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view… This where is where we get into those potential spoilers. You have been warned.
Kind of like “Dune,” there is one thing “Wicked” hides in its marketing that I would have never gathered from trailers and ads alone. I knew about this before going into the film, because other people dropped the news beforehand. But for those who do not know, “Wicked” is a part one. Early on in the film, the title card of this movie shows up, we see “WICKED” in huge letters, and shortly after, the words “PART 1” shows up. And BOY does this movie feel like a first half of a two part story. You can say the same for “Dune,” a movie that for the record, I happen to fall within the target audience… My point is, I feel like “Dune” does a good job at not only getting me invested in a universe that aesthetically leaps off the screen ten times better than this one does. But I care more about the journey our lead character goes on. In fact, we see him during the start of the film in a certain way, and he fully develops as a character, giving a solid end to his arc in the story. There are questions regarding the character that are left unanswered, but I am intrigued enough to find out how things would unfold in a future chapter. Elphaba develops somewhat in this film, but her development feels slightly incomplete. “Dune,” despite being a book split in half, comes off as a full story. At least to me it does. I would not be surprised if some people disagree. It leaves the audience with questions. But as far as Paul Atreides is concerned, I think the movie gives him a solid progression. It left me knowing enough about the world of Arrakis. It left me knowing enough about Atreides. It left me wanting more. I left “Wicked” feeling as if I was watching an unfinished story that barely kept me awake. I remember last year when “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” came out. Like “Dune,” I happen to be in the target audience for that film too. I loved the movie, and I could tell that like “Wicked,” it was made with love. But also like “Wicked,” if I had a complaint about the film, it definitely feels like a setup movie at times. It is a great setup movie. But there is a reason despite me giving the film a 10/10 for its many positives during my review, I ended up sliding it down a spot on my Top 10 BEST Movies of 2023 list, where “Godzilla Minus One” just so happened to be my number one pick for the year.
Sticking with “Across the Spider-Verse,” I enjoyed all the characters, the animation, the production value, everything that particular movie had to offer. They do way more than enough to make the part one worthwhile. As for “Wicked,” there are decent characters but they are in an off and on story. The world is not as interesting as I hoped it would be. A few songs are okay, but I cannot say I am raving about them. In fact, some of the song sequences gave me a headache. Part of it may do with me seeing the movie in Dolby, but still. If I were to watch the movie a second time either at home or in a regular theater, hopefully that does not happen again. The pacing of this movie is as slow as snail. The movie is two hours and forty minutes long. It honestly almost feels like three or even longer. I found myself rather invested in the second half at times, but the first half? I found myself wanting to fall asleep. But I could not do that, because I was in a Dolby Cinema, and the songs were so loud they were giving me a headache!
As the film was ending, I will be real, despite my many negatives, I was rather riveted by Erivo’s take on Defying Gravity. This is not a song I would listen to on my own time, but within the context of the story, she puts on a good show. There is also, again, really good camerawork in this sequence. There are a couple shots that are so immersive you feel like Erivo is singing right in your face. For many people, I would imagine this would be the reason why the movie is worth seeing. Unfortunately for me, I was immensely tired after the first half to the point where the movie barely redeemed itself by the conclusion. This was a good sequence. I just wish it were in a movie that had more of my attention.
In the end, I left “Wicked” rather unfulfilled. I will remind everyone, this is a part one. Unfortunately, this film failed on an important objective, which is getting me excited for part two. I am probably going to see it, because I know a lot of people will be talking about it. But if I were not reviewing movies, chances are I might skip it unless someone I know invited me to see it as their plus one. Again, I am not the target audience for this movie. It was likely made for someone who was not me. But the same can be said about other movies I reviewed like “Barbie,” “On the Basis of Sex,” and “Hope Gap.” I liked all of those movies! I cannot say the same about this one. If you like “Wicked,” good for you. I am glad you had fun. But I found the soundtrack to be mediocre, the overall look of the film to be slightly unappealing, and the world to lack my overall investment. I have to give credit to certain groups in this movie. A lot of the actors do a good job. The costumes are really nice. The sets definitely have effort put into them. This movie comes with plenty of good, but I nevertheless found an equal amount of bad. You could even say there are things that make “Wicked” watchable, but it is done in a package that failed to win me over. I like Jon M. Chu as a director, and when it comes to unleashing good performances out of his cast, that is where he excels here. But when it comes to creating an enjoyable musical atmosphere, I think he does better job with that with “In the Heights.” I do not love “In the Heights,” but I think it is a slightly better film than “Wicked.” If someone were in the room with me and they put it in on, I would not leave. I would watch it again. As is the case “Killers of the Flower Moon” last year and “Elvis” the year before that, “Wicked” is probably going to be a huge awards contender. But like those two other films, I am definitely in the minority with my negative opinion when it comes to “Wicked.” I mean, I liked the movie more than “Challengers…” Go ahead, punch me in the face. I do not care. I said what I said. All I can do is give my honest opinion. I am going to give “Wicked” a 5/10.
One last thing I want to bring up… I do not know if this was a studio choice or a directorial intention or if this was just my screening, but I want to know if anyone else experienced this. When I saw this film for the first time, I noticed that there was a tint attached in my presentation that was pink and green. It stayed that way during the entire film. You might think I am just seeing things because those are the two consistent colors throughout the picture. Although I must point out that this tint was also present during the trailers. When the MPA warning flashed, I noticed hints of pink in the font. I am not sure what the purpose of that was, but it was kind of distracting. Did anyone else see that too or was it just me?
“Wicked” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! By the way, a lot of people appear to be seeing “Wicked” as part of a double feature with another film, “Gladiator II.” Be sure to check out my review for that movie as well! Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your most unpopular movie opinion regarding this year in cinema? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Y2K” is directed by Kyle Mooney and this is his directorial debut. The film stars Jaeden Martell (St. Vincent, It), Rachel Zegler (West Side Story, Shazam! Fury of the Gods), Julian Dennison (Deadpool 2, Godzilla vs. Kong), Lachlan Watson (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Chucky), Mason Gooding (Love, Victor, Scream), Fred Durst (The Education of Charlie Banks, The Fanatic), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film follows two teenagers who crash a New Years Eve party as the clock gets closer to 2000. When the clock hits midnight, the group of partiers must survive against an army of machines.
While it is not my top film I have been looking forward to all year, “Y2K” is a project that has been on my radar ever since the trailer dropped. The film looked like a crazy good time that answers a question that I have to imagine some people have asked over the past 24 years. What if Y2K actually happened?
This is not the first time Y2K has been played out through a form of entertainment. There is a great “Family Guy” episode that came out around the time said event was on the verge of potentially occurring. It is a funny watch, I highly recommend it. “Y2K,” interesting enough, sometimes plays out like a “Family Guy” episode. There is a lot of throwback humor. There are also a couple sights that might make certain audience members wince. The characters, while well thought out and decently portrayed, are somewhat stereotypical. You have Jaeden Martell playing Eli, a well meaning guy who does not really happen to be that popular. You have his quirky, hyperactive best friend, Danny, played by Julian Dennison. Rachel Zegler plays Laura, a character that fits somewhere within the “popular girl” stereotype. And because this is a movie and we need our hero to want something, we come to know that the unpopular kid, Eli, ends up with the desire to kiss the more popular Laura, particularly during the first moments of the year 2000. And adding a similarity to another Seth MacFarlane project, kind of like the 2012 movie “Ted,” there is a celebrity who appears in the film as themself and they play a bit of a bigger role in the film than a simple cameo.
There are three main elements of “Y2K” that make it worth the price admission for me. I ended up seeing this film at a free screening, so maybe that is not the best phrase to use. But if I were to pay to see this in a theater again, I have a few factors as to why. First off, going back to the actors, they all do a good job with the material given to them. Each character is full of energy to the point where they almost leap off the screen. I especially adored the connection between Jaeden Martell and Rachel Zegler. For the most part, they are believable. There is a bit of an out of the blue turn between them that almost comes off as forced, but I can forgive it somewhat because the two characters are likable and I was nevertheless engaged even in lesser moments between them. Of all the characters in the film, Jaeden Martell is the center of the story, so we get to see him crushing on Zegler for a good amount of the runtime. I thought the film did a great job at displaying that. It felt like something I would have experienced in say middle school or high school. Something so fantastical, yet it is real, but also seemingly hard to act upon. I have a feeling this connection would evoke a sense of nostalgia for some people watching this at a later age.
Speaking of which, this movie tends to handle its 90s nostalgia and timeframe fairly well. The movie delivers a decent soundtrack. There are a lot of good songs in the film that match their specific scenes. The movie starts off doing its best impression of “Searching,” where our point of view is presented through a screen on a computer. As that is going on, there is a moment where dial-up Internet can be heard in the background, and we are seeing a conversation play out in AOL. We also get some moments in a video store. The nostalgia in this film is definitely played up, but it appears to work within the context of the story.
The film is also a horror comedy, and while the film is not the scariest of all time, it contains some good kills, some of which are very funny. Seeing various pieces of technology in this film become completely unhinged is a definite highlight for me. “Y2K” is probably not going to be a movie for everyone, but if you are someone who likes creative attacks and kills, you might be entertained.
Despite containing a lot of positives, “Y2K” is not going to win any Oscars. The film works and is structurally sound, but there is not a ton in it that changes the game. I say this despite also feeling that “Y2K” has given me some of the biggest laughs I had at the cinema this year. I do recommend watching this movie with a crowd. I think it is a great one to see with friends. It would make for a fun night out. If anything, it is a solid first directorial outing from Kyle Mooney, a former “Saturday Night Live” cast member. This film shows he has potential as a filmmaker, and his best work has probably yet to come. But for a first time film, it seems to work. When you have first time directors in recent years firing on all cylinders like Ari Aster with “Hereditary” or Greta Gerwig with “Lady Bird,” it is easy to forget that not all first films have the potential to end up being that director’s best in the long run. When I see debuts like these two, I automatically get excited for the director’s next movie because I think their first film is not just good, but one of the best of the year in which it came out. Therefore, that introduces a problem of recency bias. They say when you do something so lackluster or outright terrible, the only way to go is up. Kyle Mooney’s “Y2K” is definitely far from terrible, but just like something terrible, Mooney has the potential to step things up in his sophomore effort, and I look forward to seeing if he can do that should he continue his directorial career.
In the end, “Y2K” is a mighty fine film. Some would even say it is the bomb. “Y2K” is a film that I would watch a second time if given the opportunity. It is really funny, violent, and contains a likable cast. I am glad to see Rachel Zegler continuing to get more roles. Her cinematic resume is small, but she is one of this generation’s youngest and brightest talents. I loved her in “West Side Story.” I am not really a “Hunger Games” guy so I do not know how she is in “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” but I still think she is a great performer. She can sing. She can act. She can do it all. Hopefully she has a strong career going forward. While Kyle Mooney’s debut as a director is not perfect, “Y2K” carries its own sense of style. I think Mooney could have a future directing more movies. As far as this first movie goes, I had a great time. I am going to give “Y2K” a 7/10.
“Y2K” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” “Smile 2,” and “Nightbitch.” Stay tuned! 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 “Y2K?” What did you think about it? Or, if you lived during the transition from 1999 to 2000? What was that time like for you? For me, I was not even two months old so I could not tell you. But for those who do remember that time more vividly, leave your comments down below! Or, if you were born in 2000 or later, what is something associated with the 1990s you enjoy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A Real Pain” is written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg (Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, The Social Network) who also stars in the film as David. Alongside him is Kieran Culkin (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Succession) as his cousin, Benji. Also in the film are stars including Will Sharpe (The Electrical Life of Louis Wain, The White Lotus), Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Kurt Egyiawan (The Exorcist, Skyfall), Liza Sadovy (A Small Light, EastEnders), and Daniel Oreskes (Law & Order: Organized Crime, Only Murders in the Building). This film is about two cousins who take a trip to Poland to see various spots throughout the country, in addition to their late grandmother’s house.
I saw the teaser trailer for “A Real Pain” a few times in the theater, and it piqued my curiosity. I know there is a longer trailer out for the film, but for whatever reason I never got around to watching it before the film released. But the teaser had a brisk pace, gave promising chemistry between two leads, and some quickly delivered dialogue back and forth. It was by no means my most anticipated movie of the year, but it was one that if I got the chance to watch it, I would take it. Thankfully, a friend and I got to watch it over its opening weekend.
This movie has a 90 minute runtime, but it delivers a lot of material despite being a short watch. Again, I watched the teaser trailer, so I know it involved two people visiting land far from home, but I did not exactly know the movie’s true premise. Because I watched the teaser, which set the tone for the film, gave a glimpse of some of the scenes, some of the characters. But it left me with the impression that this was going to be a buddy travel flick between two people. Maybe even with a heist element considering the first shot of the teaser shows our main duo hopping train cars.
As for that last part, I was way off. “A Real Pain” is not a heist movie. I am not saying I am disappointed, it is just not what I expected. It is, however, as I correctly predicted, a buddy travel flick. And like some other movies involving long trips, it is between a couple people who have varying personalities, lifestyle situations, and habits.
You have the more accomplished David (Jesse Eisenberg) who has a wife, has a family, has a career, and lives in New York City. He is paired up with his cousin Benji (Kieran Culkin), who we come to realize has a way of easily charming strangers. But he also has a lot of quirks, some of which certain people would find annoying. I like the diversification of these two and both actors play off each other well.
I have no idea how most audiences are going to see Culkin’s character through their personal tastes. Whether they end up liking him, thinking he is too much, or if he is a nuisance. He can be a bit much. But there is no denying that he is raw. Yes, Benji may come off as a manchild who refuses to leave the nest, but there is more to his life than meets the eye. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it could be one worthy of some awards contention. It is easily the standout performance of the film and that says something because Eisenberg holds his own as David.
The film features the two leads on vacation in Poland, but I would not call their adventure an escape. The two cousins, who are Jewish by the way, are there to see various Holocaust-related sites along with the home of their late grandmother. For the record, I am not Jewish, but even as someone who is not Jewish, I have to imagine seeing certain places that these people end up visiting can elicit a number of negative emotions. To think about what these places stood for, what people did in said places, it shows the dark side of humanity and leaves one to wonder how we got to where we are now. Around the midway point of the film, our characters end up visiting a concentration camp used during the Holocaust. They get a tour of the site, including the inside of a gas chamber. When we get to this point of the film, there is no music, minimal sound, nothing more than occasional dialogue. I sometimes talk about immersion on Scene Before, but that word is typically used in relation to something spectacular or hyperactive like a big battle sequence or a race between cars. This movie immersed me through its minimalistic tendencies. The movie was literally as empty as I felt watching it. I almost did not know what to say or think other than, “Why?”
There are a couple movies that come to mind if I were to compare “A Real Pain” to something else. Specifically, “Jojo Rabbit” and “Life is Beautiful.” Not only do the films deal with the events of World War II and the Holocaust in some capacity, but both films, perhaps by the miracle of a god, manage to find humor in the darkest of situations. All of the humor feels natural. You could even argue it is cathartic. It is an escape from the harsh reality people had to deal with. Sort of in the same way some see music or books. Heck, I sort of view movies in the same light. It is an escape from reality. This movie, like many others, let me leave my world for a little more than an hour. But it simultaneously does a great job at showcasing the wrongs of someone else’s.
Keeping the title of this movie in mind, “A Real Pain,” that is something this movie highlights in a variety of ways. Some people deal with pain by crying, others reflect, others pray. As far as Benji goes, he is a complicated individual who tends to hide whatever pain he is holding back for a period of time until he suddenly breaks. We see David kind of go down a similar path, but he seems to do a better job at keeping his emotions in check. We sometimes find out the effects the cousins come to discover as a result of their grandmother’s death. “A Real Pain” is a film that deals with the universal concept of grief. It also deals with the complication of life after a great suffering. There is a moment during the train ride where Benji questions whether it is right for him and others onboard to be sitting inside a high quality vehicle in first class. He questions whether something like this is justified after many people several decades ago dealt with one of the worst events in all of history. I cannot pretend “A Real Pain” is perfect. I think some people will end up finding Benji to be a little hard to handle at times, and there are a couple scenes that despite his character feeling real, I thought he was written to be a tad over the top. But “A Real Pain” delivers on a lot of things a great story can do. It makes you laugh. It makes you cry. It makes you sympathize with different characters. This is not my favorite film of the year, but I will not deny it nails a lot of things on the head.
In the end, “A Real Pain” is a real deal. With the help of a great cast and a singular vision from Jesse Eisenberg, the film manages to find light in darkness. I cannot recommend the film to everyone, but even if you are an easy person to make cry during movies, I think there will be a fair amount of joy and laughs to balance that out. I have no idea what Jesse Eisenberg has up his sleeve next behind the camera, but if it is as good as this, I will be happy. I am going to give “A Real Pain” an 8/10.
“A Real Pain” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” 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 “A Real Pain?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you think perfectly balances light and darkness? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“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.
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.
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.
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!
“Gladiator II” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Paul Mescal (Normal People, Aftersun), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One), Fred Hechinger (Thelma, Eighth Grade), Lior Raz (Hit & Run, Fauda and Segev), Derek Jacobi (Last Tango in Halifax, Vicious), Connie Nielsen (Wonder Woman, Nobody), and Denzel Washington (The Equalizer, The Siege). This film is the sequel to the 2000 film “Gladiator” and this time follows Lucius, a slave who seeks revenge against General Acacius after his army invades his home. Doing what he can to avoid death, Lucius must survive in the Colosseum while his mentor plans to overthrow twin emperors Geta and Caracalla.
To this day I have only seen the original “Gladiator” once. As for the one time I saw it, I found my experience to be quite positive. In fact, it is one of Ridley Scott’s better films. When “Gladiator II” was announced, a couple thoughts ran across my mind. My first thought was “Why?” Not just because it is the latest in an endless barrage of sequels, but of all the stories people could have done, “Gladiator” is not one that I would have imagined needed to be continued. In fact, if you remember how the first film ends, it made me question if the franchise would have to defy logic in order to keep going. But in the case of the “Gladiator” franchise, whereas I previously imagined the name pertaining to one person, particularly Maximus from the first film. This sequel proves that “Gladiator” is more than just Maximus. The “Gladiator” name is more of an idea than anything else. Because this time we are focused on Lucius, who also appeared in the original film in the form of an eight year old boy.
If anybody remembers “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” chances are you or someone you know has said the movie is a copy paste of the 1977 franchise original. For the record, “The Force Awakens” is still my favorite film of 2015, partially because while it gets back to basics, it utilizes those basics really well. The film does a great job fleshing out its characters while also delivering action and flying sequences that are much more epic to look at than what we got in the 70s. “Gladiator II” is in a somewhat similar boat. For the record, I do not think the first “Gladiator” is as good as both of those “Star Wars” installments, but I do recognize the Academy Award Best Picture winner for its technical achievements, stellar action scenes, and killer lead performance from Russell Crowe.
Structurally, “Gladiator II” is much like the original, where the film is about a slave fighting for their own freedom. A lot of the steps and challenges our protagonist has to face is similar to the ones Maximus faces in the 2000 predecessor.
That said, while I was invested in Lucius’ journey in this second film, I think Maximus’ journey in the first installment is more compelling. Part of it is because the journey, despite some differences, is like watching the first movie all over again. I would not call it the Dollar Tree version of that journey. It has more pizzazz than that, maybe Five Below would be a halfway decent retail equivalent to use in this case. Part of why I was not as compelled by this sequel compared to the original may be because of Paul Mescal’s performance.
For the record, do not think I am dissing on Paul Mescal as an actor. Mescal does not just a good, but a great job in this film. His performance is commendable and he fits the role he is given. But the thing about Maximus from the first movie, I almost cannot see anyone other than Russell Crowe playing him. On the other hand, I can probably imagine a few other people filling Lucius’ shoes. In fact, not only can I imagine it, I have concrete evidence to prove it! We have already seen Lucius in the first “Gladiator” as a young boy! And that actor did not even come back for this sequel. The guy was not even asked if he wanted to return in the first place! I know Paul Mescal is like a decade younger than Spencer Treat Clark, but still, age comes after everyone in Hollywood these days.
While Mescal’s portrayal as the film’s lead is no Russell Crowe, if the Oscars were tomorrow, I think one performer in “Gladiator II” would have my vote for Best Supporting Actor, and that is Denzel Washington. One thing I noticed about some of the performances in “Gladiator II” is that they would sometimes be delivered with some hyperactivity. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. In the case of Denzel Washington, it not only works, kind of like Russell Crowe in the original “Gladiator,” I cannot see anyone else playing Washington’s character. And the more I watched him through the movie, the crazier he became. There are some things this character does in this movie that elevate his already commanding presence in certain scenes. I would like all of you reading this to find out what some of those things are yourselves. No spoilers. But Washington easily gives one of my favorite performances of the year.
Other than Washington, perhaps the biggest highlight of “Gladiator II” should come as no surprise, the action. The action takes a lot of what is good in the original and puts its own spin on it. It is brutal, smoothly shot, and sometimes tries to fit as much information onto the screen as possible. I knew the action in this film was going to be exciting as soon as it began. There is a sequence in the first few minutes that almost looked like a fun third person video game.
As for the fights in the Colosseum, those do not disappoint. That said, if you are looking for historical accuracy, that is where this movie may not be for you. I am not going to spoil the sequence in the arena that caught me off guard, but if you like your movies to be representative of practical events in history, you may not be a fan of this sequence. That said, I was a fan. A big one at that.
That is not the only historical liberty this movie takes. There is a moment where we see one of the characters reading a newspaper. Only problem, the printing press had not been invented until 1200 years after this film takes place. The more I think about “Gladiator II” and the glorious experience it gave me, I recognize that some of my positives regarding the film require me to bend logic and what I know about history. If I watch this film at home, chances are I could have a different opinion, a different mood perhaps. But from the second row in a crowded auditorium, I was onboard even during the more flawed moments. If anything, I will use the “Tenet” philosophy… “Don’t try to understand it, feel it.” And felt it I freaking did.
In the end, “Gladiator II” is a thrilling, captivating movie that takes you on an exciting ride through ancient Rome. It is not Ridley Scott’s best movie, but much like the original he directed more than two decades ago, the movie nails its atmosphere and delivers a completely riveting experience. The movie is chock full of different kinds of performances ranging from grounded to hyperactive to downright demented. I believed in all of them. Despite what I said about Paul Mescal, do not get me wrong, he truthfully kills it in the film. I cannot wait to see what he does next. As far as action goes, the movie has some cool kills and bloody finishes, but as far as this year for cinema goes, “Dune: Part Two” is still significantly superior in that department. But if you are looking for a fun time at the cinema, this is a solid option. I am going to give “Gladiator II” a 7/10.
“Gladiator II” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Some of you reading this post might be asking if I took part in the Glicked, Wickedator, Wickedglad double feature whatchumacallit. To answer that, I can tell you I did watch both “Gladiator II” and “Wicked,” but not back to back, but I did see “Wicked.” That review is going to wait awhile. As for my next review, that is going to be for the brand new holiday-themed action flick “Red One,” starring Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans. You can also expect reviews soon for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and THEN you will see my review for “Wicked.” Hope that is not too terribly long of a wait. 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 “Gladiator II?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Gladiator” films do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 