Movie

Top 10 WORST Movies of 2024

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the annual tradition! Something that everyone can agree on. Something that will unite us all. Something that will cause absolutely no fights whatsoever either in a comments section or on the streets. It is time for the end of the year countdowns. As I have done in the past couple years, we are starting with the worst movies list. It just feels better to get the bad stuff overwith. For those looking to see certain movies on this list, please note that I have a busy schedule between work, travel, life, and so on. I do not have time to get to every movie that has come out in 2024. There are some movies I have heard some not so good things about this year like “Harold and the Purple Crayon,” “Afraid,” and “Imaginary.” I ended up skipping these films. Either because I did not have time, or they looked terrible. Possibly both. Also, the usual reminder, this list is not scientific law, it is artistic subjectivity. If you disagree with this list, that is fine. Make your own that way you can say that the movie I hated is your favorite and celebrate it. Another thing that must be said, these movies also have to have played in theaters. Sounds snobbish, I know. But this list is about cinema, not television. With that in mind, let’s get to naming three dishonorable mentions before we go any further.

Dishonorable Mention: Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

The first dishonorable mention is “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.” “Godzilla Minus One,” which was made in Japan, ruled my top 10 BEST movies of 2023 list when I made that. Therefore, it is disappointing to know that this Hollywood-produced movie featuring the iconic kaiju in addition to Kong turned out to be a big, loud, bloated mess that made me dumber by the time it was over. It treats the audience like we have never seen a movie. It is sprinkled with some of the most in your face dialogue of all time. There are cool things in the movie though. We get to see King Kong use a young monkey as a weapon. Although it does not make up for the rest of the junk I had to trek through.

Dishonorable Mention: Sasquatch Sunset

I reviewed most of the movies on this list, but “Sasquatch Sunset” is not one of them. That said, if I were to review it, I would say that the experience the movie delivered was certainly unique, but also kind of boring. I ended up laughing quite a bit. Though I am not sure whether I laughed for the right or wrong reasons. Also, I did not really care for the characters. I sat through this movie in the sense that I was watching events happen as opposed to experiencing them. The film is definitely different, but one watch is enough for me.

Dishonorable Mention: Challengers

Here is an unpopular opinion… I really did not like “Challengers.” Do not get me wrong. The movie has good performances, especially from Zendaya. But there are a lot of things about the movie I did not enjoy. The story left me uninterested, the score left me with a headache, and to my surprise, I did not think the movie was that sexy. I know that was an aspect they were shooting for. Maybe it is a personal taste thing? A lot of people seem to love this movie, I was just not one of them.

With those dishonorable mentions out of the way, it is time go from the bad to the ugly. These are my top 10 WORST movies of 2024!

#10: Venom: The Last Dance

This list has a couple of consistencies on it. Bad Sony movies and bad comic book movies. Both of those consistencies start with the top of this list! Bottom? Top or bottom? I do not know which is more accurate. Whatever, it starts with perhaps the most tolerable of the top 10 movies on this list… “Venom: The Last Dance!” I was disappointed, but not terribly shocked that I found “Venom: The Last Dance” to be a bad film. I was not a fan of the first “Venom” movie, but I surprisingly dug the second one. This third movie is not the worst of the trilogy, but I found parts of it to be slow, tiring, and forgettable. The one thing that saves the movie is the chemistry between Tom Hardy’s characters. Eddie and Venom to be specific. That is one consistency between these films. Even though the franchise as a whole is not great, they did get the casting and chemistry right. Mrs. Chen is also in this movie. You could honestly remove her character and have the movie be no different. This movie serves both as a finale to the “Venom” character, at least this iteration of the character, and as a kickstarter to what could be an ongoing saga in Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. The execution of both aspects were not that satisfying.

#9: Bob Marley: One Love

Coming in at #9 is “Bob Marley: One Love.” This is a film that has glimmers of decency, but it is surrounded by a multitude of dull scenes with characters I do not care about and a story that nearly put me to sleep at times. This film seems to be heavy on drama, but I wish I were more intrigued by it. Looking back at Kingsley Ben-Adir’s performance, it is not the worst acting I have seen all year. But at times Ben-Adir comes off as if he were giving a Bob Marley impression rather than an authentic performance. I dislike this movie for a number of reasons, and I hate myself for disliking it for this one, but I have to be honest. I wish I understood the dialogue. I do not know if it was the accent or the audio levels not being up to snuff, but I there are times could not make out what was being said, even if there was no music in the background. My least favorite part of the movie though is the ending. I will not spoil it, but it was a huge letdown. It felt as if the movie were building up to something and suddenly said, “Forget it!”

#8: The Garfield Movie

At #8 is the next Sony movie on this list! You could even say it is based on comics too! Not superheroes, not Marvel, but still… Whatever the case may be, “The Garfield Movie” is the biggest waste of time I spent this year watching an animation. I knew this movie was going to be bad just from the marketing. Chris Pratt playing “Garfield?” Goodness gracious! That’s a choice! The guy already ruined “Super Mario” so why not add this hairball of a performance to his resume? Pratt’s execution of the title character did not just make me hate Mondays. It made me hate all the days. In fact, all the months. The years. The decades. All time, really if you think about it. Chris Pratt just plays Chris Pratt in this movie. The performance is as bland as can be. The movie barely had any laughs in it. And the ending, while not super annoying, does take a long time to tie things up. If it were not for some okay-looking animation and Ving Rhames’ stellar voice performance as Otto the bull, this movie would be even lower on the list.

#7: Argylle

I enjoy a good spy action thriller. This is not one of them. I am talking about “Argylle,” one of the biggest disappointments of the year. This film is directed by Matthew Vaughn, who also helmed the “Kingsman” movies. Like those films, this occasionally has decent action scenes. Yet the movie becomes perhaps the most diabolically unhinged headache-inducer I have seen all year. This is a movie that by the midpoint thinks it is so clever, so twisty, that my jaw hit the floor. Although in reality, my jaw dropped not because I was impressed, but rather annoyed. There is a good movie somewhere in “Argylle.” It starts off with a clever concept about someone’s book coming to life, but then it just spews a bunch of nonsense in your face and throws some cat porn into the mix. By the climax of the movie, when our main hero is ice skating on oil, I just shrugged like a maniac. My suspension of disbelief could only go so high. “Argylle” may have notable names behind it, but that is only a small part as to what makes the film such a big letdown.

#6: Night Swim

I will admit, after watching this next movie, I watched the short it was based on, and thought it was not that bad. That said, it does not change the fact that the feature-length version of “Night Swim” is one of the worst movies of 2024. This film is about a family who buys a house with a haunted swimming pool in their backyard. Sounds scary, right? No. What made this film not so scary to me is a direct correlation to something else this movie lacks, which is my personal investment in the characters. The film does an okay job fleshing out the father character, who used to be a pro baseball player. I liked seeing that play out. Although I did not really care about anyone else. Going back to what I said about “Argylle” and suspension of disbelief, that was also broken in this film too. I get this is a horror flick involving a haunted pool, but there is a point where I thought things may have gotten a little too off the rails. This is Bryce McGuire’s first feature film as a director. For all I know it could end up being his worst one should he continue down this career path. Maybe he has something better up his sleeve in a sophomore effort.

#5: Tarot

Guess what guys? Sony’s back! Although this time we will be talking about a Screen Gems release, not a Columbia Pictures release. Up next is a film that as soon as I finished watching it, my brain chose to vomit out anything I knew in relation to it. “Tarot” is one of the most forgettable, dull experiences I had watching a so-called horror movie in the past 12 months. I remember watching “Ouija” years after it came out, and if there were a film that I could easily compare it to, I think “Tarot” might be it. It is a bunch of young people playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes. Only difference, I do not think this film is going to have the cultural impact that “Ouija” did. Heck! “Ouija” got a sequel, and I hear it is actually pretty good! I did not see it. But who knows? Maybe it is worth watching in comparison to this pile of malarkey. The film is not that scary, and is full of characters who are bland at best. Maybe “Tarot” could be a good time with some alcohol, but I do not drink. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this movie is just plain horrible. Just like “Night Swim,” this is a directorial debut. Only difference is, the movie is helmed by a duo – Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg. Maybe their next outing, whether it be together or separate, will be better.

#4: Kraven the Hunter

It’s the gift that keeps on giving! ANOTHER Columbia Pictures release! And just like “Venom: The Last Dance,” it is based on Marvel’s “Spider-Man” comics! May “Kraven the Hunter” rot in a torture chamber for all I care! What was this thing?! “Kraven the Hunter” might as well be the nail in the coffin for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. If this is not, then what are we doing here? What have we done to deserve this? This film is not just a massive waste of time for loyal viewers of its respective genre like myself, but I have to imagine it is equally as wasteful for the people working on it. You have Aaron Taylor-Johnson trying his absolute best to play a convincing anti-hero. He is certainly convincing but his material is not backing him up quite well. Then you have Oscar winners like Russell Crowe and Ariana DeBose, the latter of whom was also in “Argylle” this year so that is kind of sad. Crowe plays maybe the most one-dimensional so-called father figure in film history and DeBose plays some disposable character who plays with tarot cards. Consider yourself lucky “Tarot,” you are not the worst movie on this list involving those doohickeys! This movie has the most poorly structured screenplay I think I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing in a comic book movie. Add in some bad CGI and forgettable villain characters, you have the recipe for an utter disaster! The sad thing is, “Kraven the Hunter” is not even the worst comic book movie on this list!

#3: Joker: Folie à Deux

Marvel is already getting beaten to death on this list, so why not DC?! “Joker: Folie à Deux” is likely what happens when a studio gets so caught up in seeing dollar signs that they forget how to make something artistically sound. Throughout the 2010s, the comic book movie sub-genre has produced hit after hit after hit, including the original “Joker,” which then became the highest-grossing R rated title of all time. So making a sequel had to be an easy decision. From a business perspective, I could get the reason behind making a sequel. Although for art’s sake, I was nervous when they announced a sequel, and I think I was right for that reaction. The worst thing about “Joker: Folie à Deux” is that it genuinely feels like a slap in the face to every single person who could have possibly had any interest in it. I do not mind movies being bold or different. I was actually kind of excited when I found out there were going to be musical numbers in this movie. But I was disappointed when I found out that just about every musical sequence would make me roll my eyes and beg for mercy. Although several things that I thought were good about the original “Joker,” feels like it takes a step backward in this sequel. Story – boring. Characters – unlikable. The acting – not the worst I have seen, but still feels bad compared to what he have seen before. The ending – asinine. The pacing – slow. Deep exploration into the main character – nearly nonexistent. This is a two hour schlock that honestly feels like it a goes on for a month. There are positives of the film including the production design and Lawrence Sher’s cinematography. This film, like the original, is directed by Todd Phillips, who also co-wrote the film once again with Scott Silver. While I will give them credit for making a great original, I cannot help but detest their efforts on this sequel. These people honestly created a movie that comes off as an insult to its own audience.

And now, a live look at what happens to your money when you pay to see this movie…

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

#2: Borderlands

Coming in at #2 is an enormous embarrassment of a movie that somehow made me want at least one of the heroes to die. That is not the feeling I should be having while watching a story play out, but it happened. Ladies and gentlemen, the video game movie curse is not quite broken yet! Because we are still getting stinkers like “Borderlands!” I have never played “Borderlands,” and after watching this movie, I am of two mindsets. One, this movie is so bad that it ruined my chances of ever playing the games. Or two, this movie is so bad that it makes me wonder how much better the video games are in comparison. I have seen images of the games and if were to issue one compliment about the movie, the overall look tends to feel similar to the games. But that is about it. There are times where this movie genuinely looks like a video game, and I do not mean this as a positive. The backgrounds and special effects in this movie look obscenely fake. This film is an hour and a half of Cate Blanchett wearing one of the least convincing wigs I have ever seen all the while spewing uninspired dialogue. The film has a ton of big names, but that just makes the movie even worse! Aside from Cate Blanchett, you also have Ariana Greenblatt, Kevin Hart, Jamie Lee Curtis, and most annoyingly of all, Jack Black delivering one of the most headache-inducing voiceover performances of all time. If you think Cate Blanchett’s dialogue is horrible, just wait until you hear whatever the heck comes out of Jack Black’s mouth. It is not his fault. He clearly sounds like he is trying. But his character, Claptrap, is essentially the “Borderlands” equivalent to Jar Jar Binks from “Star Wars.” Gosh, how bad was Jack Black in this movie?! Speaking of video game movies, if the upcoming “Minecraft” movie is as bad as I am expecting, I think Black needs to find a new agent. This movie is a watered down version of a rather gory video game franchise that has stars, but it ends up wasting all of them. These people are talented, but here, they tend to come off as miscast. Some people say playing video games rots the brain. But if you would like the perfect movie to destroy your noggin, look no further than the poor excuse of mind-numbing buffoonery that is “Borderlands.”

#1: Madame Web

We have reached the culmination of the countdown, and not just because this is the #1 film. Guess who’s back again?! Sony! That’s right! It’s another Columbia Pictures release! And that’s not all! This is another movie based on Spider-Man characters! La-de-freaking-dah! My #1 worst movie of the year is “Madame Web.” My brain still hurts from this mess! The same can be said for my eyes! Not to mention my ears! And let’s not forget about my soul! This movie was a first for me. When the film ended, I literally stormed out of the auditorium like a child. No hyperbole. As soon as the credits popped up, I shoved myself out of my seat, turned right, waltzed my way through the row, and rushed down the stairs like a maniac just hoping to escape the saga of stress that was this movie. This is what happens when imagination dies. We get heaping piles of garbage like the ones Sony seems to be putting out in its non Spider-Man series of “Spider-Man” movies. And this is not just the worst of the three movies in this universe Sony put out this year. If you ask me, it is the worst one they put out period. Yes, I think it is worse than “Morbius!” You may remember that film topped my worst movies of 2022 list. “Madame Web” makes “Morbius” look competent. The funny thing is, both films have the same writers! If at first you don’t succeed, Sony will hire you again anyway, because why not.

I said this as I reviewed “Kraven the Hunter,” and I will say it again. I do not have comic book movie fatigue. But I nevertheless find this whole Sony Spider-Man Universe to be the most tiring trend in Hollywood. This is essentially Sony trying to make “fetch” happen time after time after time and never getting the message! I know some people say the Detective Comics Extended Universe plays second fiddle to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and by that I mean the Disney-owned Marvel timeline… But at least the DCEU has some great movies! “Madame Web” is just another waste of time in Sony’s web of bores and chores.

This film stars Dakota Johnson, who for all I know is a nice person, I liked her in a few projects. I still have not seen the “Fifty Shades” trilogy, which depending on the source, I hear is about as unwatchable as “Madame Web.” That said, I saw her performance and I do not think the word “sleepwalking” has ever been a more accurate term to use than it is here. Going back to “Borderlands,” you could say Cate Blanchett sounded like she was tired as the lead of that film. But at least that sort of ties into how the script describes her specific character. Dakota Johnson sounds like she was bored out of her mind. Every other scene she had a vibe that simply screamed, “just give me the paycheck.”

Of course, Johnson’s material did not serve her well. Once again, this is from the same writers behind “Morbius,” Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless. Granted, there were other writers too. I do not know if this is a case of not understanding the material, having too many cooks in the kitchen, or perhaps a combination of those two things. Perhaps something else entirely. Nevertheless, a bad movie is a bad movie. And believe me when I say this movie is a travesty. Take some of the worst dialogue of all time, unlikable characters, stiff direction, bad A-D-R, bleak color grading, and top it off with a rather deceptive marketing campaign, and you have the recipe for an utter disaster! Some could say this movie has a so bad it’s good vibe to it, but I do not see it. This is a movie made by people who seem to barely have any interest in what it is about.

Honestly, this movie reminded me of 2015’s “Fantastic 4,” where you have recognizable actors on screen known for other decent projects, but they are wasted in this mind-numbing comic book-based abomination. Granted some faces are more famous than others, but on top of the recently mentioned Dakota Johnson. You have Sydney Sweeney, a two time Emmy nominee! She even does the whole cliche where you take someone so shy and reserved and out of nowhere she becomes the belle of ball. It is so unbelievably corny.

And if you did not give your money to the fine people behind “Madame Web,” that is okay. Because Pepsi certainly did! Pepsi is everywhere in this movie! As a soda drinker myself, I kind of go back and forth between Pepsi and Coke. Although if you ask me, it is possible that “Madame Web” solidified me as a Coke drinker for a very long time because it is one thing for Pepsi to dominate every frame. And in this movie’s case, the drink dominates a noticeable amount of them. It is another thing for them to arguably play as much of a role in this film as our protagonist by the time the film reaches its conclusion.

And speaking of conclusions, that is both the best and worst part of the movie. Because remember how I said this movie has deceptive marketing? By the way, that is another thing this film and “Morbius” have in common. Pure poetry! If you remember the trailers for “Madame Web,” they show our heroes in costume, but we do not end up seeing that until the final couple of minutes! To top off the laziness, we see a vision of our characters in the future, probably in some story we will hopefully never see, and said vision borrows a shot from “Spider-Man 2,” a significantly better film in every way imaginable.

I said at the beginning of this list that you are going to see bad Sony movies and bad comic book movies. “Madame Web” as far as I am concerned, is the worst of both disciplines. It takes a giant crap on several well-known characters. It further tarnishes the rotting corpse that is the Sony Spider-Man Universe. The film itself is shot and presented in a rather lackluster fashion. It has an occasionally nonsensical screenplay that contains insufferable characters emitting terrible lines or in your face exposition. And it is sad to know that this movie was part of Columbia Pictures’ 100 year celebration! Judging by some of the other movies on this list, I do not think Columbia’s 100th year was their best. Some people say Disney and Warner Bros. had some noticeable missteps during their centennial celebrations in 2023, and it looks like Columbia is following them in such a path in 2024.

If someone buys you “Madame Web” on DVD, just run the copy over with a car. I would not wish this movie on my worst enemy. “Venom: The Last Dance” is bad, but Tom Hardy still holds his own as the two lead characters. “Kraven the Hunter” is a disgrace, but it has okay action scenes. “Madame Web” has nothing redeemable about it. There was one part in the middle of the movie that served the story in a halfway decent manner, and for all I know, maybe this movie could lead to someone remembering how to perform C-P-R one day. But that is about it! “Madame Web” is executed in such a way that made me wonder if the people behind it refused to give a single ounce of care about it. As for my experience watching this film, chances are I cared even less. So much so that “Madame Web” is easily the worst movie I have seen in 2024!

Thanks for reading this countdown! I have to tell you the absolute truth. The bad movies really stood out this year. The past couple years I gave a 1/10 to only a single movie. Well, that is unless you count movies I saw from those years after they ended, in addition to those I did not have time to review. 2024 is the first year in a while that I had to give a 1/10 for two movies. Granted, this is also a leap year, so with an extra day comes extra stupidity. And both of those 1/10 verdicts still stand by the way. Hopefully I can soon get out this hole of pessimism. Thankfully, there is probably a way to do that! Later this week I am also going to be diving into the best movies of 2024! Stay tuned for that countdown when it arrives! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, what are your worst movies of 2024? What film irked you the most this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Complete Unknown (2024): Timothée Chalamet Shows His Range One of His Most Complicated Roles Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Complete Unknown” is directed by James Mangold (Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Logan) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Interstellar), Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk, Fight Club), Elle Fanning (The Neon Demon, Maleficent), Monica Barbaro (FUBAR, Top Gun: Maverick), Boyd Holbrook (Narcos, The Sandman), Dan Fogler (The Goldbergs, The Walking Dead), Norbert Leo Butz (Bloodline, The Exorcist: Believer), and Scoot McNairy (Halt and Catch Fire, Nightbitch). This film is set in much of the 1960s and centers around a young Bob Dylan as he establishes several relationships and creates a series of songs.

Bob Dylan is to music what the “Star Trek” franchise has been over the years to television and movies. He has been relevant since the 1960s, produced a lot of material that has been well regarded, and has somehow managed to maintain even the slightest hint of relevancy up until now. Much like the “Star Trek” franchise, I cannot say that I have the deepest appreciation for Bob Dylan. It is not that I hate Bob Dylan, or “Star Trek” for that matter, it is just that I never find myself circling around to Dylan’s music despite having many options for the taking.

You may remember there was an Amy Winehouse biopic in the middle of 2024 called “Back to Black,” which I gave a positive review. I do not think it was particularly striking or memorable, but I ended up leaning positive on it. It has its moments of fun and does a good job at capturing the darker side of Winehouse’s life. I also said that even though the movie presents the artist’s songs well, I would not claim to be an Amy Winehouse fan. I was not one before the movie. I am still not one after the movie. The same is true with Bob Dylan. I still appreciate his music, but I am pretty much in the same position as I was going into a “A Complete Unknown.” I am a Bob Dylan appreciator. Not a Bob Dylan fanatic. In regards to my appreciation, it is perhaps greater for him now than it was before, but still. I also think “A Complete Unknown” does a great job showing Dylan’s impact on the music industry by the time the movie’s over.

Is the film entirely accurate? No, it is not. If you know your Bob Dylan lore, you would know that he had a girlfriend in the 1960s by the name of Suze Rotolo. That is not the case in this film as Dylan himself requested her name would be changed. Therefore, we see Elle Fanning play a character by the name of Sylvie Rotolo (left). Regardless of accuracy, Fanning does a good job with the role. She has spot on chemistry with Chalamet’s Dylan. Speaking of chemistry, Chalamet also has quite a spark with another love interest in this film, Joan Baez, played by Monica Barbaro.

Overall, it is easy to say that the acting in “A Complete Unknown” is a standout element. This extends to more than just love interests. Edward Norton does a great job playing Pete Seeger. Dan Fogler plays one of my favorite characters in the film, Dylan’s manager, Albert Grossman. I thought of the entire cast, he was the one that delivered the most laughs. He had plenty of good material in the script to keep him busy. Boyd Holbrook oozes with charisma as Johnny Cash.

But of course, the real star of the show is Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. Chalamet has been killing it for the past year or so. In 2023, he starred in “Wonka” as the title character. While I did not love the film, he does a phenomenal job with the role. I criticized “Wonka” for having unmemorable music sequences, but it does not mean Chalamet did not do his best with them. He has proven himself to be a solid singer, and therefore it is no surprise that Chalamet ends up lending his own voice to Dylan’s songs. Not only that, but Chalamet also plays the guitar in this film. I love Chalamet’s overall commitment to the role and he looks like he is having fun with it. If I had one thing to say though, there are some scenes where Chalamet has a bit of an accent to his character that feels kind of played up. It is a little over the top. Not quite over the top enough to sound like something out of “Saturday Night Live,” but at times it was a little distracting.

As an artist, I always appreciate when a movie has something to say about art itself. “A Complete Unknown” does this very well. Not only does the film highlight a portion of Bob Dylan’s career, which by the way, given how much Dylan has done over the years, I think it is wise of the filmmakers to just corner the story into just a small chunk of his life. It is worth noting within this small chunk of Dylan’s life we get to know a bit about his influence on the music industry and his rise to becoming an icon. With these elements in mind, this presents Dylan with a problem. While he is known for his music, deep down, he would like to be more than the identity in which society has given him. He wants to try new things and experiment. This film builds to a point where we see such a monumental shift come to fruition. Bob Dylan has built a reputation as a storytelling folk artist with a calming vibe. But we find out later on that he wants to implement electric instruments into his repertoire. The extended scene where we see this play out is easily my favorite part of the film. Not only is this sequence entertaining and presents significantly more stakes than we have seen throughout the story’s prior points, but we see Chalamet successfully channel his character’s happiness and indifference in regard to what others think of him.

This movie is more than just the rise of a popular musician, but it is also the story of an artist who just wants to make art. This is a consistency in every scene. Dylan sometimes tends to put his art before the people in his life, whether he knows them personally or they just so happen to be fans. It is his greatest passion in life. The movie shows the balance of making art to impress people intertwined with the complication of making art for yourself. It showcases the hurdle of shattering audience expectations. When you watch a movie, a shocking twist is sometimes warranted and can often be done well. But when is the shift too significant? That is a question this movie tries to answer and I think the overall response has resulted in an entertaining and exciting climax to a solid flick.

In the end, “A Complete Unknown” is not my favorite film of the year, but it has a series of strong moments and performances. Additionally, it has great production design, good direction by James Mangold, and a cozy vibe. I walked out of this awards contender feeling similar to how I did walking out of an Oscar-winning film I watched in 2023, specifically “The Holdovers.” “A Complete Unknown” is a movie that emits a sense of coziness. The movie practically puts you in a warm blanket. Again, this movie did not transition me into becoming a Bob Dylan fan. I am not going to go on YouTube just to listen to his music on a regular basis. But the musical sequences where we see Dylan’s folk songs come to life are most definitely comforting. If this movie is playing near you, give it a shot. I am going to give “A Complete Unknown” a 7/10.

“A Complete Unknown” is now playing in theaters everywhere. tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! And that is the last of the movies I saw in theaters in 2024! Coming soon, I will be talking about my top 10 best and worst movies of the year. Like the past couple years, I will be starting with the worst. Stay tuned! If you want to see these countdowns 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 “A Complete Unknown?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Bob Dylan as an artist? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Babygirl (2024): “That’s Magic.” – Nicole Kidman

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Babygirl” is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Instinct) and stars Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos, The Northman), Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats, Trust), Sophie Wilde (Everything Now, Boy Swallows Universe), and Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Mask of Zorro). This film is about a CEO who puts her career and family on the line when she has an affair with a much younger intern.

I saw “Babygirl” at an AMC Theatres location. If you have been to an AMC in the past few years, you may know that Nicole Kidman has served as a bit of a mascot for the brand. I am not completely in love with this, as her spots make up part of the reason why the previews at AMC are so neverendingly long. Honestly, I would be happy if they get rid of the AMC spots containing Kidman altogether. Some see these spots as an anthem, but I find them to be an annoyance. Amazingly, during my screening of “Babygirl,” they did not play one of the Nicole Kidman spots on top of the other 26 or so minutes of theatre promotion and trailers and such. I was a bit perplexed. As much as I hate those ads, I think seeing one of them play before this film in particular would have set the mood.

That said, it does not change the fact that I was rather excited for “Babygirl.” The trailers I have seen for the film are well produced, and allowed me to have high expectations for what was to come. I had a sense of what the movie was about before going in. I think if anything, the trailers did a great job at letting the audience know what the vibe was going to be. The marketing looked fun, compelling, and perhaps most importantly, sexy. After all, desire plays a major part in this film’s narrative, particularly when it comes to the state of our protagonist, Romy.

“Babygirl” is going to end up being one of the more memorable movie experiences I have had this year. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but it is an experiential event. And it all starts at the beginning of the film when we see Romy’s major problem. The film impressively highlights Romy’s lack of desires with her husband (Banderas) and her struggle to fulfill herself in her sex life. We see this part of the story flesh itself out over time and it unleashes some great acting from both Kidman and Banderas. The two perfectly portray a couple who happen to be on a bit of a decline.

“Babygirl” delivers the vibes I was hoping I would get out of “Challengers.” A lot of people love “Challengers,” but I was not one of them. “Babygirl” is easily the steamiest film I have seen this year. This is a film that I would recommend watching, but I would think twice before putting it on when your parents, or especially your grandparents are in the same room. I think this could make for a hot movie to set the mood on date night. This is especially noticeable with the fiery chemistry between Nicole Kidman’s Romy and Harris Dickinson’s Samuel. Their boss/intern connection eventually develops into something not as necessarily safe for work. Several scenes between these two do much more than satisfy. They also beautifully fit within the context of the story. They help us get to know each of the characters. They remind the audience of Romy’s internal struggle. Both actors are completely believable as said scenes play out. Harris Dickinson was not on my radar previously. Although he had a role in 2022’s “See How They Run,” which I gave a positive review. Dickinson is not just good in this movie, I cannot see anyone else playing his specific character. I left this film wanting to see more of his work. If there is another Harris Dickinson movie coming out, consider me interested.

Now judging by what has been said so far, you might think that I will remember this movie for its eroticism. While that is definitely this movie’s top selling point, the film is layered when it comes to fleshing out its protagonist. I must reiterate, Nicole Kidman is a knockout in this film. She gives a powerful performance that I hope gets plenty of buzz in the coming months. But I love how this film manages to make its main character a CEO. We see Romy in a position of power at work. At home, she is busy raising a family and pleasing her husband to the point where she forgets to take care of herself. Additionally, this film is set around the holidays, which is traditionally a hectic time of year. Romy is busy being this wise, helpful presence in other people’s lives that when all of a sudden Samuel enters her own life, she cannot help but submit to him. I mentioned this film is steamy, but sex is just a selling point. As a character piece, “Babygirl” sings.

Though in more ways than one, “Babygirl” is easy on the eyes. The film has a clean look to it. The color palette looks like something out of an insurance commercial, but I mean that as a compliment. The film is certainly picturesque with some vibrant locations and sets. The camerawork is also very good. The shot choices consistently deliver on immersion. Select shots go on for extended periods of time, allowing me to take in and digest the actions of said shots. There is also one shot in the film that starts in the air and slowly navigates down to several of the characters as they walk through a yard. It is a breathtaking series of images.

Again this movie is set around the holidays, and it does maintain a joyful look to it, even if a good portion of it is spent inside a corporate office. In a sense, kind of like the holidays, the movie has a vibe that meets somewhere in the middle of noticeable stress and occasional happiness. Every moment in this film maintains a brisk pace and there are scenes I practically leapt into the screen. There is one scene at a rave that is arguably worth the price of admission. Although fair warning, if you have trouble with flashing lights, I recommend maybe sitting this movie out. For all I know, “Babygirl” could become a Christmas tradition for some people. Maybe not with the family. But I think if you are either by yourself or with your partner, this could make for a great watch around the holidays. While the films have their notable differences, I think “Babygirl” could even serve as part of a double feature with “Eyes Wide Shut.” After all, both films are associated with sexuality, feature Nicole Kidman, and are set around Christmas! It’s perfect! Also, as the Movie Reviewing Moron, I do not endorse watching “Eyes Wide Shut” with the family either. That’s a no-no.

Courtesy of A24 – © A24

In the end, “Babygirl” is 2024’s sexiest movie. Nicole Kidman gives a standout performance as Romy. The rest of the cast is also quite solid. Harris Dickinson also notably plays his role to perfection. The film is a great balance between vibes and characterization. I do recommend this film under the right circumstances. Again, do not watch if your parents or grandparents are in the room. Same goes if you have kids. But if you are in the right place at the right time, “Babygirl” is a must see. I am going to give “Babygirl” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A Complete Unknown,” the brand new movie starring Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Babygirl?” What did you think about it? Or, what movie do you watch every year around the holidays? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Nosferatu (2024): Cinematic Production Value Meets Campy Choices in This Horror Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Nosferatu” is directed by Robert Eggers (The Lighthouse, The Witch) and stars Bill Skarsgård (Barbarian, It), Nicholas Hoult (Juror #2, The Menu), Lily-Rose Depp (The Idol, Voyagers), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Godzilla), Emma Corrin (Deadpool & Wolverine, The Crown), and Willem Dafoe (The Lighthouse, Spider-Man). This film centers around a married couple, and the events they go through in connection to a vampire.

© Focus Features

When I reviewed “Kraven the Hunter” last week, I said that at this point, I go to see Sony’s Spider-Man Universe Movies out of obligation. I love the genre “Kraven” falls into, but I cannot pretend that movie or any films closely related to it are the best representations of said genre. In addition to both of these movies featuring Aaron Taylor-Johnson, that is something “Kraven the Hunter” and “Nosferatu” have in common.

If I were to name a director who I do not particularly admire, even though many people say they are really hot right now, Robert Eggers is the one that comes to mind. I am not saying he is a bad person, nor am I saying he is incapable of making something great. But I think my tastes have not aligned with what he has delivered so far. It is not because I find all of his films to be too out of left field. In fact, “The Lighthouse” is a movie I find to be delightfully weird. I have not watched the film from start to finish since the theater, but I often go on YouTube just to watch the clip of the two main characters dancing to “Doodle Let Me Go.” It is one of the most oddly memorable pieces of cinema I have witnessed in my life. But I did not like “The Witch,” and if you read my review for “The Northman,” you would know I gave the film a barely passable score, but looking back, I have no real plans to watch the movie again and since watching it, I found the film itself to be quite forgettable. I remember it more for its quirks than anything else. If I were to review it again, my score might not be as generous. Admittedly, I was rather conflicted when I put my initial score down.

But as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained. With that in mind, I ventured through “Nosferatu” at a surprisingly packed screening. I was shocked to find out how many people were going to see this movie at 1 p.m. on a Friday at an AMC located inside of a dying suburban mall. Granted, it was also two days after Christmas and there are a good amount of people who had time off from school and work, but still, I am happy the movie is doing well business-wise. That said, I do wish the movie itself impressed me more.

I am not going to pretend “Nosferatu” is a terrible film that should be avoided at all costs. But in terms of script and directorial choices, there are some things that did not stick the landing for me. My experience with this film kind of reminds me of “Malignant.” That film’s contains a serious vibe, but also feels unpleasantly campy. While definitely less campy, “Nosferatu” also falls into the same boat. I say this as someone in a state of shock. Because I watched the trailers for this film and even though this was not my most anticipated release of the year, there are parts that legit looked like nightmare fuel. However, there are some choices that are made in the film that I found to be questionable at best, most notably regarding Lily-Rose Depp’s character, Ellen Hutter. The more I thought about this movie after seeing it, and this character is perhaps the biggest testament to this, this felt like a live-action cartoon. There is so much over the top acting, line delivery, and random motions to the point where the film feels like it belongs somewhere on Fox’s Animation Domination lineup.

I almost think “Nosferatu” would make for a good video game. Maybe that would be the case if they added a little more to the story or world, but I say this because this film has some over the top characters like the recently mentioned Ellen Hutter and Bill Skarsgård’s Count Orlok, AKA Nosferatu. I say this because one of the film’s main characters, Thomas Hutter, played by Nicholas Hoult, is easily the most down to earth individual in the story. This is noticeable by a significant margin when you consider the other characters in the cast. I think as a center of the film, if you can call him that, Thomas works because he feels the most like an everyday man. So in a sense, it makes the rest of the movie feel extraordinary, even if it occasionally results in something that feels tonally inconsistent. Hoult’s character has dialogue in the movie, but he reminds me of a typical video game protagonist because if you play certain titles like “The Legend of Zelda” or “Portal,” you would notice that the protagonists in those games never talk. Similarly, Thomas Hutter is definitely the quietest character on this film’s roster.

While this film is not the best for me in terms of its substance, I will compliment it in terms of its style. If I were to watch “Nosferatu” with the volume off, I would be okay with it. Because the film has astounding production design that took me back in time to 19th century Germany. All the architecture and streets looked stunning. The color palette for this film is on the darker side, and it works completely. There are moments of the movie where there is more vivid color on display, and those moments feel all the more appealing when they happen. It comes off as a breath of fresh air.

Similarly, the cinematography is also very good. This film is shot by Jarin Blaschke, who also shot all the previous Robert Eggers-directed films. The two have proven to have a loyal partnership and seem to understand each other. As much as I do not love Eggers’ work, the cinematography is by no means offensive. It is actually a standout element in each of these projects. The film, like Eggers’ others, has some immersive closeups and shots where we center on the characters’ faces. There are some cool looking dolly techniques. There is one shot that caught my attention where a hand’s shadow is flying in the air. Even if I forget about some things in “Nosferatu,” and that is honestly looking like it is going to be the case. That shot is probably going to be something I will remember. Robert Eggers, like many directors, has his consistencies. If there is one that I could call a favorite, it is his continued collaboration with cinematographer Jarin Blaschke. I hope these two continue to work together as much as possible, even if their next film ends up not being great.

In the end, “Nosferatu” is yet another point as to why Robert Eggers is not my favorite filmmaker. I know he has his fans, but I am not one of them. While “Nosferatu” is far from the worst horror title I have ever seen, I did find it to be rather dull. Additionally, it is also the worst thing that a horror title can be. Not scary. I do not recall a single moment where I felt terrified during this entire film. The scare attempts range anywhere between lazy to overdone. There is no goldilocks zone in between these extremes. Is the film pretty to the naked eye? Sure. But I do wish the narrative compelled me just a little bit more. I am going to give “Nosferatu” a 5/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Babygirl” and “A Complete Unknown.” Once those are done, it is time to talk about my best and worst movies of 2024! 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 “Nosferatu?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite horror movie released in 2024? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Flow (2024): 2024’s Quietest and Most Unique Animated Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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.

© www.screenrant.com

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 (2024): Colorful Spectacle and Obnoxious Dialogue Overshadows Stakes in This Threequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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.

Photo by [Paramount Pictures and Sega of A, Inc.]/Paramount Pictures and – © 2024 Par. Pics & SEGA

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 (2024): Nowhere Near the Quality of Peter Jackson’s Original Trilogy, But Still Precious Enough to Get by

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2024): Amy Adams Plays a Relatable Character in This Fairly Average, Wasted Concept of a Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

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 (2024): Parker Finn Returns to Deliver One of My Most Pleasant Surprises in 2024 Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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!

Wicked (2024): A Great Leading Duo Cannot Save This Middle of the Road Musical

Posted on by Jack Drees

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.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

“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.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

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.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

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.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

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.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

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.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

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!