Movie

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024): Anya Taylor-Joy is Fast and Furious in This Mad Max Prequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is directed by George Miller (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) and stars Anya Taylor-Joy (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The New Mutants), Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Tom Burke (Mank, The Souvenir), and Alyla Browne (Sting, Three Thousand Years of Longing) in a prequel film that follows its titular character’s origins throughout various stages of her life, before she meets Mad Max.

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is one of those films that had my interest ever since it was first announced. And as much as I know people love Charlize Theron’s take on the character back in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” I was very much excited to see what Anya Taylor-Joy could do with the role. She is one of the hottest names in Hollywood right now, racking up several projects that have given her a diverse resume. Everything from Jane Austen adaptations like “Emma.,” to visionary horror titles like “Last Night in Soho,” to a video game adaptation that has become one of the decade’s most mainstream titles, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” I am proud to say that when it comes to Anya Taylor-Joy’s take on the Furiosa character, I was not disappointed. Like all of her other roles, she plays the part well. Despite this movie having a female protagonist, this movie feels pretty masculine. And I mean that in a positive way. As I watched this movie, I was on a bit of a high, and Anya Taylor-Joy is the drug that fueled it.

In fact, all the actors in this film are great. None of them feel out of place. Not only does Taylor-Joy provide a superstar outing as Furiosa, but her younger variant, played by Alyla Browne, also shines bright. Lachy Hulme does a good job as Immortan Joe, who we previously saw played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in “Fury Road,” rest in peace. In fact, that’s not his only role in the film, because he is credited with playing Rizzdale Pell, a gang member serving under this film’s most enjoyable character to watch, Chris Hemsworth’s Dementus.

They say a movie is only as its good as its villain, so I am happy to report that Dementus will end up being one of my favorite on-screen villains I have seen this year. While Chris Hemsworth is playing a different character entirely, it is safe to say that he is putting the “mad” in “Mad Max.” He’s over the top, bombastic, and kind of wonderfully demented. Sometimes he is so rage-filled it is kind of artistic. There is something beautiful about it. Also, I love how he has a line twisting a classic phrase where he utters, “Lady and gentlemans.” Chef’s kiss.

And much like Hemsworth’s Thor sometimes, I can say Dementus’ beard game in this movie is strong. Just look it it. I have grown out my facial hair quite a bit from time to time, but I cannot say I have ever grown a beard like the one Dementus has. Adding to the beautiful rage of this character, Hemsworth himself has something to say to back that up. Speaking with Variety, Hemsworth goes on about his experience in the makeup chair…

“Twas justifiably irritated by the end of it. That really helped my performance-there was a nice amount of pent-up rage simmering under the surface.”

Take this as a lesson kids. If you work hard enough, and learn some patience by sitting in a chair, you too can entertain tons of people by becoming a bit of a maniac. Inspiring stuff.

That said, looking back at “Furiosa,” this movie ends on a bit of an interesting note. I do not want to spoil everything that happens in this film, but if you are a novice to this franchise, I will remind you once again this is a prequel to “Mad Max: Fury Road.” A film that, and I apologize to the thousands of cinephiles I am inevitably going to irritate, I find to be a tad overhyped.

Now to find that flame shield…

Nevertheless, I recognize that a lot of work went into “Mad Max: Fury Road,” not to mention a lot of money. Based on research via IMDb, the total budget of the film comes out to $150 million. Despite being older and less expensive, it still looks better than some of the more recent Marvel projects for example, including Hemsworth’s own “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Just so we have the statistics in place, I will remind you that “Furiosa” cost more than “Fury Road,” specifically $168 million. For the record, Wikipedia says “Fury Road” cost anywhere between $154.6–185.2 million, but if I had to compare “Fury Road” and “Furiosa” side by side, I would say that “Fury Road,” depending on what the actual budget is, feels like the slightly bigger bang for the studio’s buck. It is also a slightly better movie as a matter of fact. Story-wise, both of these movies do not have the most Shakespearean of plots or happenings. They are pretty simple when it comes to their concepts. And honestly, in the case of “Furiosa,” I sometimes wish I were more interested in some of the goings on that we witnessed on screen. “Furiosa” has a runtime of 148 minutes, and I truly felt that runtime. I have no problems with movies going on for that long. In fact on paper, one of the pros of having such a long runtime for a movie like this is that we get to see some pretty cool extended action sequences. There are some action scenes that go on for quite a bit and had me glued to the screen. But substance-wise, “Furiosa” feels kind of thin. Does this movie try to deliver a fun story? I guess. But other than seeing Furiosa grow up, I did not feel as engaged with this film as I wanted to. That said, one thing I was engaged by was seeing Furiosa’s exposure to certain torturous acts, and how much said acts shaped the perspective of the character throughout the film.

But this film ends on an interesting, yet rather fitting note. I do not think this is a spoiler. If you think otherwise, you do you. But the end credits for “Furiosa” start with a few minutes of clips essentially detailing “Mad Max: Fury Road.” After all, again, this film leads into that one. Though it got me thinking… Upon leaving the movie, I did not say I wanted to go back and watch “Furiosa” a second time. If anything, the credits made me think I should potentially revisit “Fury Road” instead. While “Furiosa” is well done in its own right, it made me wish I were watching something better. I have seen “Fury Road” twice, and even though I think it is not the masterpiece some call it, I recognize there is plenty to like about it. And I think there is more to like about “Fury Road,” than “Furiosa.” Sure, “Furiosa” could stand as its own movie, but at the end of the day, it doubles as the world’s most robust, compelling advertisement for “Mad Max: Fury Road.”

Much like “Fury Road,” “Furiosa” tends to use star power to sell itself between the casting of Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth. However, from an effects perspective, the money is definitely there, but it does not mean the quality is there. What makes the look of “Fury Road” so appealing at times is despite knowing it is a movie, it tends to look as raw and lifelike as it could in such an environment on display. In “Furiosa,” there are a fair share of effects that look like they could belong in a blockbuster movie, but they feel like they belong more in a demo for the sake of showing off a new piece of tech. There is a lot less verisimilitude with these effects this time around. While “Furiosa” does not have the worst special effects I have seen, they are a significant step down compared to its predecessor.

And that’s the thing about this movie. It reminds me a lot of “Fury Road,” but it does not do anything as exciting as it. Plus between some long buildup, some forgettable characters, and scenes that probably did not need to go on as long as they did, I do not think “Furiosa” is worth watching a second time. How does it compare to the other “Mad Max” installments? I will be real, I have not seen any of the other ones. I want to, I just have not had the time. I could tell George Miller made the movie the way he intended. I just wish it were better.

In the end, “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” has plenty of positives. But there is not a lot in this movie, maybe other than Hemsworth as the villain, that truly stands out. Do not get me wrong. Anya Taylor-Joy does a good job as the title character. The film, despite some overpolishing, is easy on the eyes. The color palette of the film is appealing. I say this film looks like an over the top tech demo, and I meant such a thought as a bit of a dig. But it does not mean the film all looks bad. Also, if the Oscars were tomorrow, “Furiosa” would definitely be nominated for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. But when all is said and done, I would rather watch “Mad Max: Fury Road” one more time as opposed to watching “Furiosa” again. I am going to give “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” a 6/10.

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is now playing in theatres and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Thelma,” the new movie starring June Squibb as an elderly woman who tries to get her money back from scammers. Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” 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 “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga?” What did you think about it? Or, which Furiosa-centric story do you think is superior? “Fury Road” or “Furiosa?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Inside Out 2 (2024): A Bigger, Not Better, Yet Still Really Solid, Look Inside Riley’s Head

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Inside Out 2” is directed by Kelsey Mann (Party Central, Megas XLR) and stars Amy Poehler (Parks and Recreation, The House), Maya Hawke (Asteroid City, Do Revenge), Kensington Tallman (Drama Club, Home Sweet Rome!), Liza Lapira (NCIS, The Equalizer), Tony Hale (Veep, Arrested Development), Lewis Black (The Daily Show, Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law), Phyllis Smith (The OA, The Office), Ayo Edebiri (The Bear, Bottoms), Lilimar (Batwheels, Cleopatra in Space), Grace Lu (Fright Krewe, Super Wings), Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green, Adèle Exarchopoulos (Blue is the Warmest Color, Passages), Diane Lane (Let Him Go, Extrapolations), Kyle MacLachlan (Dune, Twin Peaks), and Paul Walter Hauser (Richard Jewell, Cruella). This film once again follows the emotions inside Riley’s head. As Riley enters puberty, the five core emotions of the previous movie face the reality that they could potentially be replaced with newer, more complex emotions. Meanwhile, Riley tries to properly navigate herself and fit in while attending hockey camp.

Pixar is one of those studios that I automatically associate with greatness. What Studio Ghibli likely is to Japan, Pixar is to the United States. A group of talented individuals making some of the most mature, watchable animation out there. When it comes to the Disney library, I tend to prefer Pixar’s work over their own in-house studio. That said, I still think “Raya and the Last Dragon” is one of the best animated films of the decade. While studios like DreamWorks and Illumination tend to have their place in moviegoing, when I watch an animated movie, chances are I am going to prefer it to be under the Pixar banner. Their track record over the past few decades has been astounding. With the exception of “Elemental,” I like every film they have put out so far. That said, when they greenlight a sequel, a part of me asks why. Granted, part of the answer is likely money. But even with that in mind, I question the creativity factor that would go into such movies like “Toy Story 4.” I felt the same way about “Inside Out 2,” which I was kind of intrigued by, but I was worried that it would not have the same impact as the first one. I thought the original installment was one of the best films of the 2010s. Then again, even though I thought “Toy Story 4” is the worst of the franchise, it is still an incredibly watchable, admirable flick. Maybe “Inside Out 2” would meet a similar fate.

To my lack of surprise, “Inside Out 2” is in fact a step down from the original. In fact, when it comes to the Pixar lineup, I would put “Inside Out 2” in the lower or middle tier. But as I have said before, Pixar movies that do not meet the higher tier are still, most of the time, solid enough to possess a level of quality that plenty of movies would kill to meet.

The good news is with “Inside Out 2” is that it does a nice job at evolving its characters. In this film we see Riley become a teenager, she is going through puberty, and we get a decent look into how that all plays out. Inside her mind, we see all the complexities of her emotions begin to rise as we meet new characters like Anxiety, Envy, Ennui, and Embarrassment, all of whom seem to serve their purpose. And these characters, on the surface, tend to accurately represent what a lot of teens probably go through at that time of their lives. Between their identity, seeing other people have things they do not, aging out of things that they may or may not actually want to age out of. If it did not properly represent me at that age, I am sure it will do so for somebody else.

On that note, Pixar usually does a good job with casting. Of course, Amy Poehler is back, and she brings a powerhouse performance as Joy. Phyllis Smith also does a great job as Sadness. Both characters continue to be the heart and soul of the franchise to some degree. Lewis Black also shines as Anger. But Maya Hawke as Anxiety is a serious contender to go down as the year’s most memorable voice performance. Not only is this character fantastically written and conceived, but she is performed at such a pace that I would automatically think of when it comes to Anxiety. Even if she is talking normally, her voice sounds like she is moving a million miles a minute. She is hyperactive, a little zany, but not too much. And there is one scene we witness towards the film’s climax where she is stunningly animated. Her movement in said scene very much fits her name. Her general design fits the role too. Anxiety is one of those characters that looks appealing, but kind of gets on your nerves once you get to know her. I say that in a good way of course, her purpose in the film is brilliantly realized. She is the closest character this film has to an antagonist, but I would not necessarily call her a villain. But much like some of the best villains or antagonists, Anxiety is someone whose perspective you can easily understand, possibly even appreciate. That said, I was still able to root for the core emotions throughout the movie. For Riley’s sake, I wanted them to get their way as the film went on.

The best thing about these two “Inside Out” movies, in addition to many other entries to Pixar’s library, is that there is a lot for grown-ups to appreciate to a greater degree than children. There is a segment where we get deeper into Riley’s mind and visit some of her more archived possessions. Two of which include characters named Bloofy (Ron Funches) and Pouchy (James Austin Johnson). First off, from an animation perspective, I love how this movie seamlessly blends these 2D characters into its 3D environment. Second, if you ever seen an episode of say “Dora the Explorer,” either as a child growing up or as a guardian watching over somebody else, I guarantee the moments that these two are on screen are going to get a laugh out of you. I knew seconds after they came on screen exactly what they were going for. These characters even did the cliche where they’re breaking the fourth wall, asking the viewer what they think should be done. Points all around. This movie amazingly described a lot of people’s childhoods while they were sitting in front of the television. And going back to the animation style, these are not even the only two styles we see, because the film also introduces a character named Yong Yea, who very much has a design similar to the artstyle of characters from the “Final Fantasy” games. These styles complement each other beautifully and never come off as distracting.

If you must know, “Inside Out” has arguably my favorite ending in an animated movie. It is to some degree, one of the simplest climaxes in a major motion picture. But what goes down in said climax is nothing short of emotional. It hits me every time I watch it because it shows that sometimes in life, happiness and sadness can work together to make you feel whole. In this film, the stakes feel a little bit bigger. Not just inside Riley’s head, but also outside. That said, one thing that felt a little smaller in this film’s ending compared to the last one is the emotional impact. The ending is really good and makes complete sense. But it seemed to be missing a moment that I took with me as the movie ended. There is one moment, or more accurately, a repeated line, that I continue to think about. Each time it was said, it truly showed what Riley was going through, and how she was perhaps letting her emotions and desires get the best of her. But with the last movie, you have multiple moments that I will list among some of the greatest in cinematic history between “Take her to the moon for me,” and Joy and Sadness allowing Riley to have a second to shed a tear when she needed it most. There are no moments in “Inside Out 2” that quite reach that level.

The structure of this movie is one to admire. Because the film is partially about Riley trying to get on a hockey team. In reality though, as much screentime as we get out of it, you could argue it is a borderline B-plot. The A-plot is inside Riley’s head as the B-plot is happening. That plot being the fight to make sure Riley is mentally stable. Because the reality is if Riley does not make the team, deep down, she still, depending on the state of her emotions inside her, has her mental health. The emotions’ jobs are to make sure Riley is herself and in control. And if she ends up making the hockey team, that is just bonus points. But if Riley reaches an extreme that could alter the course of her life for the worse, then chances are they are failing at doing their jobs.

If you think “Inside Out 2” is better than the original, I could totally understand why. But I feel like the first does a slightly better job at addressing the problems Riley and her emotions go through. It also possibly benefits from its originality. At the time, I do not think I have seen any concept like it. The first film exemplifies what Pixar does best. Taking inanimate concepts and heightening them to the point where they can make you laugh, cheer, and cry. “Inside Out 2” takes a lot of what is great about the first movie and builds on it, but it is not quite as memorable or as impactful as the material we got back in 2015. That said, there is a reason why the film has made more than a billion dollars at the box office. Because it is quite watchable. Good for kids, good for adults, good for everybody. Much like “Wall-E” did for me when I was younger, I am sure young children will probably watch this in their childhood and see it one way, and maybe come back to it as an adult and watch it with a new, matured set of eyes. And it is possible they might enjoy it more at such an age.

In the end, “Inside Out 2” is, again, not the best Pixar movie. But it is still a really good watch. I definitely found more enjoyment out of it than their previous feature, “Elemental,” so that is quite a positive thought if you ask me. The emotions are all well written and performed. I even liked Liza Lapira filling in for Mindy Kaling as Disgust. I thought she did a great job. Tony Hale as Fear was also quite good. He was very expressive throughout the picture. Although I could tell there was a difference in his voice compared to Bill Hader’s. That said, it is a good thing he is putting his best spin on the performance as opposed to doing a crappy impression of the previous one. The score of these past two films tend to serve as a character of its own sometimes. It was touching in the first one, and the same can be said here. As soon as the music played in this start of the film, I felt like I was instantly transported back to this universe. But as usual for Pixar movies, this film is beautifully animated. And kind of like the first film does in its abstract thought scene, “Inside Out 2” manages to seamlessly diversify its animation style. It looks great and never feels out of left field. I am going to give “Inside Out 2” a 7/10.

One last thing… I was a bit on the fence when they announced an “Inside Out 2,” partially because of how good the first one was. Having seen this second film, I can confirm the first one is far superior. But also having seen the second film, it honestly got me thinking… As much as I enjoy franchises like “The Incredibles” or “Finding Nemo,” they feel finite compared to “Inside Out” when you consider they’re about a certain group of characters. Even though the franchise revolves around the mind of Riley, I would not mind seeing inside the mind of a young boy or the mind of someone entering their 50s, or someone working the graveyard shift. There are tons of possibilities for the “Inside Out” franchise. If they greenlight an “Inside Out 3” with the Riley as the center, I am there. If they greenlight an “Inside Out” spinoff with somebody else as the center, count me in. I am game no matter what.

“Inside Out 2” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga!” Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Thelma,” “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” 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 “Inside Out 2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your personal favorite of the “Inside Out” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Young Woman and the Sea (2024): Daisy Ridley Swimmingly Stands Out in the Latest Live-Action Effort from Walt Disney Pictures

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Young Woman and the Sea” is directed by Joachim Rønning (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil) and stars Daisy Ridley (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Chaos Walking), Tilda Cobham-Hervey (Hotel Mumbai, The Lost Flowers of Alice Hart), Stephen Graham (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Kim Bodnia (Killing Eve, The Witcher), Christopher Eccleston (Thor: The Dark World, True Detective), and Glenn Fleshler (Boardwalk Empire, Billions). This film is inspired by the book of the same name and is about the competitive swimmer Trudy Ederle, who makes a daring attempt to swim across the English Channel.

One of the benefits of being in a “Star Wars” movie is having such a massive franchise be part of your resume. But regarding the more recent films, particularly the prequel trilogy and the sequel trilogy, it feels interesting to note that a few of its leads are, unsurprisingly, mostly known for their “Star Wars” roles, but not really making rounds since. Sure, Hayden Christensen did “Jumper.” But who religiously and fondly remembers that movie? What else has he really done since “Revenge of the Sith” that has stood out? As for Daisy Ridley, who I adore as Rey in the “Star Wars” franchise, I hope she can find some enormous success outside of the “Star Wars” franchise that way she does not remain a one hit wonder of sorts. I liked her in “Chaos Walking,” but I recognize that movie is not perfect, even though I did have fun with it. That, and COVID-19 definitely affected its box office performance. Yes, I am aware Ridley did other things too. “Murder on the Orient Express,” the “Peter Rabbit” movies, “The Marsh King’s Daughter…” But I have not seen any of those.

While I cannot legitimately recommend any of those movies, I can say Daisy Ridley’s latest film, “Young Woman and the Sea” is definitely worth the watch. Not only is it a solid story, but one thing that favors the film is the timing of which it released. After all, it is summer. Therefore, it is basically swim season. The Olympics are around the corner. It is the perfect time to get in the water. Maybe you will not want to venture the same waters as this movie’s lead, but still.

But even if you do not want to venture those same waters, you may feel inspired to do other great things. I am a straight white male, so I cannot speak for everyone, but I have a feeling that a lot of people who check out this movie are going to feel empowered, they’re going to feel inspired. Everyone loves a good story of this nature, and it is perhaps a bonus if the lead is a woman like it is here.

While this movie is about Trudy Ederle, I thought it also did a good job with its supporting characters. I really enjoyed the scenes early on in the film where we see Trudy learning to swim and getting to know the others inside the building, in addition to one tradition they share. In addition to Trudy’s journey as she navigates the English Channel, I was simultaneously engaged with what was going on back at home. We see the family’s perspective, how nervous they are, and I think plenty of people can relate to those events playing out. It is natural for a parent to worry about their kid in a multitude of scenarios. Heck, my mom constantly worries about me getting to work on time. Granted I have to be there at 2 a.m…. But still. A good movie can make you care for its lead and their progression throughout the runtime, but that good movie could potentially be better, like this one, if you somehow also care about those who tend to express their worries about the lead.

One of the unsung standouts of “Young Woman and the Sea,” and I perhaps mean that literally, is the music. This film’s score is done by Amelia Warner, whose work I have not heard previously, but the orchestral power of this film leaves me curious as to what she has up her sleeve next. Each instance of the music adds to the tension, adventure, and sometimes joy of each scene. It is easily one of my favorite musical compilations this year. “IF” still remains my favorite score perhaps, but this trails only slightly behind.

Production value-wise, this film is as inviting as can be. The shots look beautiful. Every time I look at the water in this movie, it makes me want to go by the sea. It truly strikes a proper mood. It was also soothing to see the film’s various environments accompanied with a 1920s vibe. The film is chock-full of impeccably designed interiors. Probably some of my favorite I have seen this year. “Young Woman and the Sea” is quite a picturesque movie that is easy on the eyes. A lot of the frames that pass by as I am watching our hero navigate the English Channel are enchanting to gaze upon.

If I had any real critiques that come to mind regarding “Young Woman and the Sea” it would probably be that the film seems a little played up for what it is trying to be. Granted it is nowhere near as played up as the last movie I reviewed, “Summer Camp,” but it is sometimes over the top. The performances in the film are all over the place. It is not to say they are bad, but they seem to clash with each other tonally sometimes, as if they belong in a couple different movies. The actors all do a good job, even if their collective performances are not quite a perfect match. This film is a term I do not use often, but it feels appropriate to use here. If there were a word to describe this film at times, it would be “Hollywoodized.” This is a story that on paper, would make a good movie. A woman taking on a dangerous mission of swimming across a body of water makes for a great story, especially considering this one is true. But some of it is perhaps pushing the boundaries of reality. It sometimes feels familiar in terms of its story and its beats. This film is released under the Disney banner, and even though the two movies are not quite the same, “Young Woman and the Sea” reminded me of another Disney live-action effort, “The Finest Hours,” another story highlighting a dangerous time in the water. That film also felt played up and perhaps overly glamourous. I think “Young Woman and the Sea” is much more engaging, but both movies share similar flaws. They are presented as these glorious tales, and to some degree, they can be defined as such. But the movies tend to push the limits in terms of how glorious they actually are.

In the end, the real question is, should you watch this movie? Absolutely. Give “Young Woman and the Sea” a shot if you have the time. It is played up and sometimes cliche, but it is nevertheless charming and inspiring. I liked all the characters in this movie. The chemistry we see between Trudy and her sister, who is wonderfully played by Tilda Cobham-Hervey, is quite good. Performance-wise, despite being a bit on the hyper side, I admired Sian Clifford as Charlotte, Trudy’s swimming trainer. Every time she is on screen she has a commanding presence. If there is any performance I remembered the most from the movie, aside from Daisy Ridley’s, it is hers. “Young Woman and the Sea” is probably not going to be on my top 10 of the year, but it is a movie that I am glad I saw. It is an effective, inspirational story of determination, feminism, and going for the impossible. I am going to give “Young Woman and the Sea” 7 seas out of–

Wait, that doesn’t sound right… I’m going to give the movie a 7/10. There, that’s better.

“Young Woman and the Sea” is unfortunately not playing in many places right now, and as of writing this, the film is not currently available to watch at home. But if it is somehow playing near you by some miracle, check the movie out if you can.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Inside Out 2,” one of the biggest films of the year so far. I cannot wait to finally talk about this one. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” “Thelma,” “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” 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 “Young Woman and the Sea?” What did you think about it? Or, do you enjoy swimming? Tell me where your favorite place to swim happens to be! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Summer Camp (2024): Shelter Yourself Away from This Average Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Summer Camp” is written and directed by Castille Landon (After We Fell, Perfect Addition) and stars Diane Keaton (Book Club, The Godfather), Kathy Bates (Misery, The Waterboy), Alfre Woodard (Desperate Housewives, Memphis Beat), Beverly D’Angelo (National Lampoon’s Vaction, Entourage), Nicole Richie (The Simple Life, Great News) Josh Peck (Drake & Josh, Ice Age: The Meltdown), Betsy Sodaro (Duncanville, Disjointed), and Eugene Levy (American Pie, Schitt’s Creek). This film is about three childhood companions who reunite at the summer camp where they’ve bonded in their youth.

If you are asking why in the universe I, a 24 year old male, spent my time watching “Summer Camp” in a cinema, please note that if I were alone, I probably would have skipped this movie. But I was with other people and it seemed to be a fair equalizer. It has comedy, it has stars, and it is on the shorter side. It’s basically the same thing as “Anyone But You” all over again except this movie clearly does not have people close to my demographic as part of the target audience.

Was I looking forward to “Summer Camp?” Not really. But as MJ says in “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” “Expect disappointment, and you will never get disappointed.” That said, I cannot say I was disappointed with “Summer Camp” given my low expectations. But I also cannot say I was quite thrilled with it either because I did not find the movie to be that great. Is it better than I thought it would be? Sure. Maybe a little. But it is not saying much.

What did I like about this movie? While the overall structure of the film is somewhat predictable, there’s no real gaping holes in the story that threw me off. Everything in the movie makes sense to a certain degree and all the characters had their moment. Not only did they have their moment to shine during the movie, but the story effectively pays off its characters’ arcs. I thought each outcome the characters individually achieved were genuinely earned. The ride this movie takes me on is quite bumpy, but it ends on a note that I would consider to be a highlight. In fact, despite noting the characters being well constructed, I cannot say there are any performances in this film that really stand out. Sure, the main trio is “good enough” for the film to steadily progress and not have things falter significantly. But if anything, this film seems to rely on star power. Granted, not stars that a ton of my generation would generally recognize or care for.

Nevertheless, you have Diane Keaton, who’s had a storied career in her real life and is playing someone who’s trying to maintain a storied career in this film. There is also Kathy Bates, whose performance here is neither a titanic powerhouse or a complete and utter misery. She is doing her part to bind things together. You have Eugene Levy, who serves halfway decently as this movie’s aged boy toy. And… Yeah, that seems to be the entirety of his purpose, other than spewing wisdom or something. I am actually surprised they got a younger star like Josh Peck, who seems to maintain a nostalgia factor for gens y and z. I do not think this is going to get the younger audiences in. But then again, he was in “Oppenheimer,” which almost made a billion dollars at the box office. The characters themselves in this movie are not broken. For the most part anyway, there are some fantastical elements to their background or personality that I have trouble buying into. Speaking of their background, it sometimes feels surface level. We know their problems, but the movie is a bit rushed for those problems to have a semblance of depth.

As mentioned, this movie is a bumpy ride. One of the biggest problems that comes to mind with “Summer Camp” is that it feels inconsistent. At one moment it tries to be a comedy. In another instance, it tries to be a drama. Unfortunately, the tones this movie offers appear to clash a bit. And as a comedy, this movie honestly could have been funnier. Granted, there are no moments looking back where I put both my hands on my face to relieve myself of the cringe that I witnessed, but there are no jokes in the movie that truly sold me either. At best, the comedy is middle of the road. A lot of the comedy, and honestly, looking back at the trailer for the film confirms this for me, feels been there done that. There is another scene, also in the trailer, where a food fight breaks out. A scene like this one could conceptually come off as comedic, but when I watch it, the only things it comes off as just so happen to be forced and unrealistic.

I do like the themes this movie tries to highlight. The movie tends to tell its audience that life is short, and we should do whatever we can to make the most of it. If there is a hurdle in your life, you can overcome it. Life is not all work, all the time. You should also make some time for play. These are ideas that are well executed throughout the film. And given the target audience this film seems to be aiming for, it will probably sit well with them, despite this movie feeling rather disposable. It surprises me how much substance seems to have been delivered in a movie like this. If anything, I thought it was going to be a complete goof-fest. Again, the tones do clash, but there are highlights even when said tones butt heads. As far as the whole “elderly women friends” get together and find themselves experiencing shenanigans sub-genre, if that’s a thing, goes, this is, given time to marinate, a step up from “80 for Brady.” Unlike that film, “Summer Camp” seems to have more stakes and fewer conveniences. I actually felt like I was watching a movie as opposed to a random compilation of events and tired comedy gags.

Well, okay, there were tired comedy gags. Plenty of them in fact. I am not saying this movie is Shakespeare, but when you compare it to “Madame Web,” it is definitely watchable in parts. There are parts I would rather forget. Although to be real, I could forget this entire movie and be okay with it. But having seen the movie, I enjoyed what I saw. This is not the worst movie of the year. It is likely going to entertain some people and turn others off. As far as I go, I am somewhere in the middle.

In the end, “Summer Camp” is not going to win any awards. But I don’t think this movie deserves to be cast into a fire. At worst, maybe it deserves to be in the Walmart $5 bin when it comes out on DVD. It is not that funny, but I never found it to be overly annoying. It is harmless. At times, the movie is preposterous and utterly ridiculous. But cannot say it makes me wish to put a gun in my mouth. Maybe a water pistol. At least I’ll hydrate from that depending on what’s inside. “Summer Camp” tries to do several things at once, but I cannot really say it does any of them to such a masterful level. This is not the worst movie of the year, but it is by no means a summer spectacular. I am going to give “Summer Camp” perhaps one of the most generous 4/10s I have ever given. Part of me wanted to give it a 5, but between the overly fantastical backgrounds certain characters have, the varied depth some of them maintain, product placement, and the tonal inconsistency, I just cannot do that. I do not know. That could change. But for now, it is a 4.

“Summer Camp” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Young Woman and the Sea.” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my reviews for “Inside Out 2,” “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” “Thelma,” “Daddio,” and “A Quiet Place: Day One.” 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 “Summer Camp?” What did you think about it? Or did you ever go to summer camp in your youth? Tell me about your experiences in the comments! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Garfield Movie (2024): A Case of the Mondays

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Garfield Movie” is directed by Mark Dindal (Chicken Little, The Emperor’s New Groove) and stars Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The LEGO Movie), Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers, Pulp Fiction), Hannah Waddingham (The Fall Guy, Ted Lasso), Ving Rhames (Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction), Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, Jack the Giant Slayer), Cecily Strong (Schmigadoon!, Saturday Night Live), Harvey Guillén (What We Do in the Shadows, Eye Candy), Brett Goldstein (Ted Lasso, SuperBob), Bowen Yang (Saturday Night Live, Awkwafina is Nora from Queens), and Snoop Dogg (The Joker’s Wild, Training Day). This film is inspired by the “Garfield” comic strip and centers around the iconic orange feline who reunites with his father all the while needing to complete a high-stakes heist.

The “Garfield” property is one that I never found myself overly attached to. As a child who grew up in the 2000s, I have come across the Bill Murray-led “Garfield: The Movie” and watched it a couple times. I did not have a passion for the material, personally. In my early double digit ages, I have also watched a couple episodes of Cartoon Network’s “The Garfield Show” when we had company at my house and I was not the one controlling the TV. Safe to say, with my limited exposure and lack of memory or experience with the comics, “Garfield” was not something I cared about a lot as a kid.

Speaking of not caring, I felt rather indifferent about “The Garfield Movie.” The only catalysts that could have gotten me invested in “The Garfield Movie” are the trailers looking uniquely bad, and the powers that be deciding some time ago that Chris Pratt is the only person who can lead big animated movies now for some reason. As soon I heard Chris Pratt was voicing Garfield, my first thought was the same when I heard he was voicing Super Mario. And that thought was, “Why?”

Now that I have seen “The Garfield Movie” and have now witnessed Chris Pratt’s performance as the title character, my thought was the same when I finally saw “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and heard Pratt voice the title character in that. And that thought was, “Why?” Genuinely, I do not know how Chris Pratt could have worked in this role. The only defense I could possibly come up with is that Garfield, by nature, is a pretty lazy individual. And when I am hearing Chris Pratt talk, he kind of sounds rather mellow and unenthusiastic. That maybe could be what the movie’s going for, but it doesn’t work for me. And maybe this shows Pratt’s range because he also voiced Emmet in “The LEGO Movie,” which, sure, is pretty much the definition of an everyday, ordinary guy. But Pratt sounds enthusiastic enough in his performance there to put a spin on the everyday nature of the character. If anything, Chris Pratt in “The Garfield Movie” is about as interesting as a trip to DMV. He is lifeless, lacking in flair, and sounds as if he is just getting ready for the fat cat of a paycheck. The best way I can sum up Chris Pratt’s performance in “The Garfield Movie” is to say that I do not see a cat. I just see Chris Pratt in a soundbooth. It is the same problem I had with Dwayne Johnson voicing Krypto in “DC League of Super-Pets.” When you get a big name celebrity like that to be the lead voice of your film, sure, maybe it will boost credibility for select audience members. But to me it almost fails to come off as “acting.” I love “The LEGO Movie,” and Chris Pratt is a standout as the voice of Emmet. But “The Garfield Movie” is not a good fit for him. I did not think Chris Pratt could give a less interesting voiceover than “Onward.” Then “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” happened, and so did “The Garfield Movie.” What a world we live in.

That said, the movie’s supporting cast is a bit better. Samuel L. Jackson does an okay job as Vic (center). Hannah Waddingham, even though she could have been written better, does the best she can with Jinx. I thought Nicholas Hoult gave a much better performance as Jon than I anticipated. I like Hoult, but I was rather surprised he put as much passion as he did into the role. But by far the best performance in the movie is Ving Rhames as Otto, a bull who served as a mascot for a farm. Rhames currently has a consistent career in the voiceover game doing Arby’s commercials. But his performance as Otto proves that he not only has the meats, he has the goods. Also to his advantage, he has the best lines in the movie. There is one line, I cannot remember it verbatim, that he uses to mathematically determine how long it would take for Garfield and Vic to cooperate and work as a team. But for what I remember, based on the way it was executed, it delivered one of the bigger laughs I had during the film. And that transitions into another disappointment. I wish this film were funnier. After all, “Garfield” is an iconic comic strip. You’d expect humor out of something like “Garfield.” And sure, there are glimmers of “The Garfield Movie” that deliver a few laughs, but not a ton.

Animation-wise, the movie delivers a fairly wide color spectrum in certain scenes. There are moments, color-wise, that feel surprisingly bland. But I was impressed with the animation of the Italian restaurant we see at the beginning of the movie. Additionally, there are a few shots that tend to stand out and match the film’s mile a minute pacing. But I cannot say anything regarding the animation is revolutionary or changes the game. Although one compliment I would add is that Garfield himself is well designed. For the most part, he looks like he is straight out of the comic strip. They did a good job at bringing him to life. I just wish he were voiced more effectively.

One thing I took from “The Garfield Movie” is the notion that if this is how the title character is in his other material, then I probably do not have a passion for said character. On paper, Garfield may sound relatable, but his relatability is hard to balance for story like the one this movie is delivering. Garfield’s relatability comes from laziness, unwillingness to get outside, flawed dieting choices, things that make us human. Deep down, some of us can put ourselves in Garfield’s shoes, but throughout this film, no matter how much the plot chooses to progress, Garfield himself appears to lack dimension. In fact, going back to Ving Rhames as Otto, I think he had by far a much better journey in this movie than Garfield did. By the time we got to the end of his portion of the story, it delivered a greater sense of satisfaction to yours truly to what I felt as soon as we got the end of Garfield’s time in the film.

On another note, I was surprised to know how much product placement is in this film. Who directed this? Michael Bay?! Where are the explosions?! Where’s the corny, outdated dialogue? Come on, guys! What are you doing?! I’m guessing this what one of the “Transformers” movies changes into when it needs to shake things up. When it comes to animated movies, “The Garfield Movie” is not quite as bad as “The Emoji Movie” in terms of product placement, but there are obvious winks to FedEx, Popchips, and multiple instances of Olive Garden to the point where I thought I was watching a “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie instead of “The Garfield Movie.”

In the end, “The Garfield Movie” is predictable, disposable, and unmemorable. I would almost argue the movie is too chaotic. Everything gets into gear really quickly to the point where I never found myself fully invested with what was happening. The best phrase I can use to describe this movie is “run of the mill.” I have most definitely seen better, but it is not horrible. It is not the worst thing I ever seen. In fact, with “Madame Web” having released earlier this year, “The Garfield Movie” is not even the worst Columbia Pictures movie we got this year. But the first act at times is a chore to get through. Garfield is rather unadmirable as a character. The story, even with its more complex elements, is somewhat predictable. The ending almost overstays its welcome. And Chris Pratt is incredibly miscast as the titular role. I am going to give “The Garfield Movie” a 4/10.

“The Garfield Movie” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “I Saw the TV Glow.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” “Young Woman and the Sea,” and “Inside Out 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Garfield Movie?” What did you think about it? Also, Garfield clearly loves lasagna to such an insatiable degree. On that note, I must ask, what food would you say is your weakness? I have a number that come to mind, but pizza’s gotta be up there. I literally took a two hour drive from my house a month ago and stayed overnight in a hotel just to try a pizza place I have been eyeing for some time. With that said, let me know down your hunger-inducing weaknesses down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

IF (2024): John Krasinski Brings the Power of Imagination to One of the Best Family Films of the Past Few Years

Posted on by Jack Drees

“IF” is directed by John Krasinski (A Quiet Place, The Office) who also stars in the film as Bea’s Dad in addition to also voicing a Marshmallow. Joining him in this film is a cast including Cailey Fleming (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Walking Dead), Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool, Free Guy), Fiona Shaw (True Blood, Killing Eve), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny), Louis Gossett Jr. (An Officer and a Gentleman, Roots), and Steve Carell (Despicable Me, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy). This film is about a young girl dealing with drastic changes in her life who is suddenly able to see imaginary friends of real people who have grown up and separated from them.

“IF” had me partially interested but at the same time, skeptical. When I watched the marketing for this film, I noticed that it was trying its best to show off its humor, but very few, if any of the jokes, made me laugh. That said, I thought “IF” had potential. The overall design looked nice. The cast was stacked. And it was being directed by John Krasinski, whose directing resume is limited, but nevertheless impressive. I admire his work on the “Quiet Place” movies, especially the first one. That first film had 25 lines of voiced dialogue. That is pretty impressive in this day and age for something that has become rather mainstream. While it is not my favorite horror movie of the 2010s, it is arguably the most beautifully made. Krasinski has shown what he can do behind the camera so quickly and so effectively to the point where I was looking forward to just about anything he could be directing next. I did not think it would be something like “IF.” But I had an open mind.

The best thing I can say about “IF,” particularly when it comes to John Krasinski, is that this movie is probably his best showcase of his abilities as a writer. Unlike the first “A Quiet Place,” where he had help from Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, Krasinski wrote “IF” by himself. For the record, Krasinski also wrote “A Quiet Place Part II” solo, but looking back at the film, I did not attach myself to all the characters. There was a certain magic from the first installment that seemed to be missing, even though I did ultimately lean positive in my verdict. “IF” on the other hand is not only magical, it is likely going to end up being one of the best family movies of the year. Not only that, I was pretty surprised by how good this movie ended up being. Again, I was a bit skeptical. But I was nevertheless pleased by how this movie turned out.

I have talked about my love for Pixar on this blog before. To this day, their batting average is incredible. No pun intended. Thus far, the only film from the studio I would give a thumbs down to is “Elemental.” I know it is probably a hot take, but I stand by it. “IF” is not a Pixar movie. It is not even an animated movie. But there are a lot of elements to this project that remind me a lot of what Pixar does best. Taking unlikely beings and flawlessly humanizing them. Going for deep, emotional layers. Using one’s experience from the real world and letting them craft the best story possible out of it. This movie was inspired by John Krasinski’s time as a father and it clearly shows. It reveals what it is like to see your kids grow up. Yes, they’re maturing. Yes, they’re becoming one of a kind human beings, but there is also a loss of childlike innocence. Growing up, to some degree, is where plenty of people look at their dreams and put them aside for whatever reality lies in front of them. In fact, “IF” sort of reminds me of one of my favorite Pixar movies. Particularly, “Inside Out,” which had an imaginary friend character named Bing Bong. Much like “Inside Out,” “IF” does a really good job at highlighting the role that having an imaginary friend can play in a child’s life. But this film also makes an argument as to why we would also need them as adults. When we grow up, we might actually need them more than we ever did before. It would make us feel young. It would make us feel free. It would make us feel happy.

One of my favorite arcs in “IF” has to do with the Grandmother (left), played by Fiona Shaw. We learn a bit about her backstory and interests throughout the picture, including her love for dancing. The way this story plays out breaches into fantasy to some degree, but for this movie’s universe and rules, it absolutely works. This movie is very much about maintaining every bit of that youthful spark you’ve had since you were born and this particular arc is perhaps the movie’s most graceful and dazzling example of that. I loved this character, and Shaw owns the role. Great casting.

Speaking of great casting. This movie does a pretty good job on the IFs, or imaginary friends. These characters are primarily voice roles so we do not see any actors themselves. But I thought Phoebe Waller-Bridge was a particular standout as Blossom, a humanoid butterfly. Emily Blunt does a good job as the Unicorn. Christopher Meloni unleashes some of the film’s more comedic moments as Cosmo, a detective. And Steve Carell gives it his all as Blue, a furry purple monster.

If I had to pick one person I thought would be miscast, it would probably be Awkwafina as Bubble. I like of the concept of her character, which is just a bunch of bubbles that can reconstruct once popped. It’s pretty clever. But I think Awkwafina, despite her clearly not sleepwalking here, continues to show that she somewhat lacks a chameleon nature about her. From my experience, I feel even if Awkwafina is not playing the same character in one movie to the next, she’s riding that line, and she continues to ride that here. I like Awkwafina, I think she is charming in films like “The Farewell” and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings.” But is she the most disguisable, range-filled actor of her generation? If you are asking me, I would not think so. While we are on the negatives, I mentioned earlier that the movie had me turned off by the comedy shown in the marketing. There is one joke from the trailer revolving around Steve Carell’s Blue that honestly did not work for me. Specifically, the one where Bea is keeping Blue from saying “IFs.” It is about as awkward and as cringeworthy as I expected. But hey, at least this movie did not pull a “Madame Web” and straight up lie to me in the marketing. I thought the joke was odd in the trailer, and also odd in the movie. It feels great not being ripped off!

On that note, when it comes to the live action roles, everyone plays their part well. Cailey Fleming is well cast as the lead. John Krasinski is also doing his best in front of the camera as the Dad. And Ryan Reynolds holds his own as Cal. While this film is not likely going to warrant any high caliber acting awards from these people, Reynolds in particular gives a standout performance because it is a lot different than what I am used to seeing from him. Usually I am used to Reynolds giving portrayals of his characters that lean more on the hyperactive end of the spectrum. This is evident through his efforts in projects like “Deadpool,” “Free Guy,” and “Spirited” for example. If anything, Reynolds’ performance in “IF” reminds a bit of his time in “The Adam Project,” partially because both characters serve as mentor figures to the film’s protagonists. That said, Reynolds seems to bring a much calmer, down to earth presence in this movie. As someone who has seen some of Reynolds’ previous work, I am not used to him toning things down a bit here, but it gives me more respect for him as an actor. Not that I did not have respect for him already, but this project shows a bit of his range.

“IF” also stands out to me from a musical perspective. This film’s score is composed by Michael Giacchino, a composer whose work I admire from films like “The Incredibles,” “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” and “The Batman.” “IF” is one of his best scores yet. Because in every moment, it fits the vibe of the picture. It ranges in its nature from being innocent at one point, to straight up bombastic in another. It is kind of like if the theme for “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” had a baby with the score for something much more epic, like “How to Train Your Dragon.” While “Wall-E” might currently be my favorite score from Giacchino, “IF” could honestly compete with that film to the point where it becomes my new top dog from the maestro. I know this is a Paramount movie, so I sort of apologize for the lack of brand synergy, but this is the kind of score that I would dare to blast from my phone if I ever go to Disneyland and make a run for the castle. That is, if it were not crowded there… Nevertheless, there is something about this score that makes me want to reclaim my youth and go back to a simpler time. Giacchino outdid himself here and I will definitely be playing the music in my spare time, perhaps as I write my future reviews.

As mentioned, “IF” is likely going to be one of the year’s best family movies. It is that good. If you have not seen “IF,” make an effort to do so. It is a movie that I would recommend to absolutely anyone. Kids. Teens. Adults. Seniors. Anyone. If you have ever had a human experience, this movie is for you. That said, going to back to my love for “Inside Out,” this movie reminded me of another thought that seems to stick in my mind regarding that film. While kids can definitely watch “Inside Out,” it is hard to know how much kids are going to appreciate it when they are young. I think kids will like the film. It is vibrant, colorful, packed with surprisingly decent humor, and it is a fun adventure. But I think this is a film that will resonate more with adults. I saw this film in a packed theater a week before it officially came out. There were lots of kids, but also plenty of adults. There were instances of the movie where a good amount of people took tissues out. I could hear crying in the audience. And those tears were clearly from adults. This movie seems to have hit these people where they live. I have no idea what the ratio would be when it comes to comparing children who at one point had an imaginary friend as opposed to those who did not. But even if you can go on the record and say you never had an imaginary friend, there is probably something in this movie for you. I did not know what to expect from “IF.” That said, John Krasinski is a mighty fine storyteller. With his range, I cannot wait to see what he does next.

In the end, “IF” is an easy recommendation. Go see this now. Take your family. Take your friends. Take your lover. Go by yourself even! I did! Solo movie outings rule! “IF” is filled to the brim with stunning visuals, clever concepts, and a story that anyone can attach themselves to. There are certain movies that I look back on like “Kung Fu Panda” that I liked as a kid, but have grown to appreciate more as an adult using the experience I have taken with me as I grew up. I am going to be curious to know how today’s kids are going to look back on this movie in a decade or two from now. When you have phenomenal casting, a script that is better than it has any right being, and an overall look to the film that is stupendously easy on the eyes, there is not much else to ask for when it comes to my experience with “IF.” I am going to give “IF” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another family film. “The Garfield Movie!” Look forward to my thoughts on that coming soon! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” and “Young Woman and the Sea.” 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 “IF?” What did you think about it? Or, did you have an imaginary friend? I cannot say I ever imagined a friend from scratch if I recall correctly, but I can confirm throughout my life, I have imagined myself being friends with pre-established fictional characters or celebrities. Maybe it kind of shows a weakness in my imagination if you will. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Tarot (2024): A Stupid Horror Flick with Stupid People Playing Stupid Games and Winning Stupid Prizes

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Tarot” is directed by Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg and stars Harriet Slater (Pennyworth, Belgravia: The Next Chapter), Adain Bradley (Mr. Student Body President, The Bold and the Beautiful), Avantika Vandanapu (Spin, Mean Girls), Wolfgang Novogratz (The Half of It, Feel the Beat), Humberly González (Ginny & Georgia, In the Dark), Larsen Thompson (The Midnight Club, Pearl), Olwen Fouéré (The Tourist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and Jacob Batalon (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Let It Snow). This film is about a group of friends who unleash an unspeakable evil trapped within Tarot cards. With time not on their side, each person must do all they can to avoid certain death.

If you have never heard of the movie “Tarot,” you are most likely off the grid or refuse to use the Internet. Personally, I found out about “Tarot” through a movie trailer before watching something else in the theater. But that is one of the few ways you could have actually been made aware of this movie’s existence. This movie had a digital-only campaign. No TV spots. No billboards. I must say, on paper, I thought this was a ridiculous idea. Because without traditional spots or billboards, the movie and its studio just so happen to be potentially missing out on a wide audience. Lots of people watch TV, and lots of people drive on the highway. Turns out, I was wrong. Worldwide, this film has made more than $42 million at the box office so far against an $8 million budget. That box office total is more than “Abigail.” For the record, that movie cost $28 million including production and marketing when all is said and done.

Now about that trailer… I was not in love with it. If anything, “Tarot” looked like a January movie. It looked like a schlocky horror title with a disengaging story that the studio is simply going to dump into theaters because it has nowhere else to go. Only in this case, they somehow thought it was a good idea to release it in May.

And you know what? The most shocking thing happened during my screening… I cannot believe I’m saying this…

Bah, just kidding! This movie’s garbage!

The characters in this movie are not quite “Madame Web” bad, but each one of them feels like they are on a haphazard network TV show that never found its footing and is likely going to get canceled after one season. They’re not that well written, not that likable, and as much as the actors give their effort, it is not exactly shown on the screen.

Few things suck more in cinema than a horror movie that fails to deliver on scares. Thankfully, when it comes to a lack of scares, “Tarot” could be a lot worse. I will admit, it does get creative when it comes to how it goes about victimizing its characters. And the events in which each of characters finds themselves waltzing through happen to make sense based on everything that has been built up from the beginning. But the movie honestly could be a little scarier.

Now it has been about a month since I have seen “Tarot,” but time has proven that it is not on the movie’s side. “Tarot” is easily one of 2024’s most forgettable movies. If you were to ask me what this movie was about, I could tell you the basics where a bunch of people are at a cabin and play with Tarot cards, even if it is a ridiculous idea. I know a bunch of people are supposed to meet their fates from their actions. But if you were to ask me which character was who, what somebody’s name was, or some minor detail towards the climax, I’d probably go blank. My brain literally vomited the information the screen fed me into an imaginary trashcan as soon as the movie was over. That said, the deaths did not leave much of an impact, even if the process to get to them unleashed some creativity. We do not get enough time to get to know the characters in order to care about any of them. Maybe we get glimpses of their personality and flaws, but we do not know much about them other than them being college students. And the rundown of the movie itself is somewhat predictable. A bunch of people make an unreasonable choice, and that is followed by onslaught of blood, gore, and deaths.

If any other movie comes to mind when thinking of “Tarot,” it would probably be “Ouija.” It is a stupid movie where a bunch of stupid young people play a stupid game only to win stupid prizes. I have only seen the original “Ouija,” but never the sequel. That said, I hear the sequel is better. Maybe through some dumb luck we can have a future where this movie gets a sequel that is significantly more worthwhile than what we got here. But until then, if this movie comes out on DVD anytime soon, I think it will not take too long for it to meet its fate in the Walmart $5 bin. “Tarot” is probably not going to catch on in the same way “Ouija” did. After all, the latter made more than $100 million at the box office, but I think based on the limited budget this movie has, Sony and Screen Gems, to my surprise, were able to manufacture something that technically qualifies as a hit out of this.

But if you are looking for a good story, good characters, and good execution out of the movie’s promised concept, you might want to stay away from this. To my lack of surprise, the film’s directors… Yes, that’s directors, with an “s,” have never helmed a feature before. As far as I am concerned, both of them can only go up from here. In addition to their directing duties, Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg also wrote the movie together. I cannot say much about Halberg’s writing background, but having looked at Cohen’s resume, I will admit this is probably not the most infuriating screenplay he has done. Because back in 2022, he was credited for writing “Moonfall,” which I had as my #2 worst movie of the year. Apparently Cohen also wrote “The Expendables 4,” which Halberg happened to produce. I did not see it, but I cannot say I heard the greatest things about that project either. Unfortunately, “Tarot” is not much better.

In the end, “Tarot” is one of those movies that as soon as the credits showed up, my brain just incinerated any information connected to it that it could. It reminds of that feeling in school where you study for a test on something you could not give two craps about, and once it is over, you refuse to care about it until the final. You did it once, and you put it behind you. That’s that. “Tarot” is a generic movie with underdeveloped characters and not that many memorable scares. I will admit though, as someone who lives near Boston, used to take the T every day, and sometimes find himself angered by its blunders, there is one scene in this film that kind of connected with me. I will not give anything away, but I will let you see it for yourself. I am going to give “Tarot” a 3/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for John Krasinski’s “IF.” Spoiler alert, it is much better than this movie. Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “The Garfield Movie,” “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” “Summer Camp,” and “Young Woman and the Sea.” 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 “Tarot?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “Ouija” or “Ouija: Origin of Evil?” Tell me your thoughts about those movies if you have seen them. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Boy Kills World (2023): Bill Skarsgård Lets the Bodies Hit the Floor in This Adrenaline Rush of an Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Boy Kills World” is directed by Moritz Mohr (Akumi, Ronin 2035) and stars Bill Skarsgård (Malignant, It), Jessica Rothe (Mary + Jane, Happy Death Day), Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey, Good Behavior), Brett Gelman (Stranger Things, Fleabag), Isaiah Mustafa (It Chapter Two, Murder at Yellowstone City), Yahan Ruhian (Warrior, Bullet Train), Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Monkey Man), H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers, Archer), and Famke Janssen (X-Men, Taken). This film is set in a dystopian time and is about a deaf and mute person who is trained to become an instrument of death. Now he must use all that he knows to achieve revenge over the murder of his family.

If I were to make a top 10 most anticipated movies of 2024 list at the beginning of the year, there is a solid chance “Boy Kills World” probably would not have been on there. Why? Because I had no idea about it. But had I seen the marketing for it at the beginning of the year, I probably would have considered sliding it into one of the spots, or at least noting it as an honorable mention. “Boy Kills World” looked like a bloody good time. And if you put Bill Skarsgård, one of this generation’s great actors together with H. Jon Benjamin, one of this generation’s great voiceover artists, you may have a recipe for a winning combo. On paper, this sounds like my kind of movie. In execution, this is most certainly my kind of movie. It is like if “Deadpool” had a baby “John Wick: Chapter 4” and it just so happened to be set in a environment straight out of “The Hunger Games.” I am not even a huge “Hunger Games” fan, but my god, is this movie delicious…

“Boy Kills World” is as simple as can be when it comes to the premise. Basically, a guy has to survive against his enemies all to get to a specific person he needs to kill. But the way this movie goes about it is unbelievably satisfying. Technically speaking, this movie has a color palette that bridges a gap between grit and fantasy… Fluid camerawork that flawlessly showcases an endless series of incredible action sequences from start to finish… And on top of that, some surprisingly intricate and palatable production design. For a movie set in a dystopian future, I was pleasantly surprised to know how much pizazz said future has.

The costume design in this film is a bit of a standout to me. It is kind of all over the place in terms of color, design, and vibe. But the movie somehow makes all of those costumes feel consistent with one another. Each costume suits the characters’ personalities in addition to the personality of the movie itself.

Going back to the “Deadpool” meets “John Wick” comparison, this movie, much like those, involves our main character looking for a little payback in honor of those he loves. Also like both movies, our protagonist, in this case, Boy, is a mastermind when it comes to killing. The stellar choreography we see from him certainly adds to the thrills as well. And much like “John Wick: Chapter 4,” I found this movie to be very video game-esque. Every other moment, our protagonist has something new to fend off, and each time, it is done with a lovingly quick pace. The action not only looks great, but it is to some degree, nonstop. In fact, one could argue that this movie is more video game-like than “John Wick: Chapter 4,” because the main character does not speak. You ever play a video game like “The Legend of Zelda” or “Portal” where everyone has lines except for the main character? That’s what this movie reminds me of. Except in this case, unlike say Link from “The Legend of Zelda,” we actually get some context fed to us as to why Boy does not speak, and it works.

The closest we get to the main character speaking is H. Jon Benjamin being a guiding voice for our protagonist, and he does an excellent job all the way through. He has a lot of lines in this movie. While I sometimes complain about actors, particularly in voiceover roles, playing themselves like Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart practically did in “DC League of Super-Pets,” I am going to give H. Jon Benjamin a pass because there is an endless sense of energy in his performance. He is one of the best parts of this movie, and we do not even see him! On top of that, if you have never heard H. Jon Benjamin’s voice, turn on any episode of “Bob’s Burgers” right now because he is legendary. There is a saying in film that you should show instead of tell. That should always be the priority. But if you want to know how much I enjoyed this movie, I will remind you that H. Jon Benjamin’s “telling” is probably some of the coolest I have witnessed in cinematic history. He can make anything sound epic, and he is only helped by a dynamite script.

It only makes sense that someone like H. Jon Benjamin would have a voiceover role in this film, because not only does it feel like a video game, it has a lot of cartoony elements. Yes, the movie is live-action. But going back to the costumes, the movie rides a fine line with them to the point where they feel authentic, but fantasy-like. The violence is over the top, creative, and bloody to no end. A lot of the dialogue is expressive, comedic, and leans into an occasional digression here and there. Also, one of the key points of this movie is the Culling, which gathers 12 people who are going to be murdered on live television. The way the movie goes about handling something like this, to my surprise, makes me buy it. If you ever watch live sports, you would notice how riddled they are with commercialism and sponsorships. When we get to the Culling, we find out the assigned killers are dressed as breakfast cereal mascots. I do not want to see a future where we have deadly events like this. But if we ever get to that point, I can see a timeline where something like this happens. After all, people need to get paid, and big corporations need to sell cereal. It’s a win win. And in “Boy Kills World’s” favor, it adds to the humor of it all despite the movie being dark and gory. There is a fun side to it.

This movie is not only killer when it comes to style, but it slays when comes to substance. Story-wise, the movie does a good job at letting us get to know about not just our protagonist, but it also does the same when it comes to handling his sister. I thought she was a standout. From the marketing, this looks like a movie that was going to deliver on action, maybe let the story take a back seat. But no, I was pleasantly surprised by how invested I became in the plot, and the details of our protagonist. This movie has multiple winning combos. A revenge tale mixed with a dystopian vibe. One of this generation’s great physical actors mixed with one of this generation’s great voice talents. And on top of the sick action, you have an admirable story. What more could you want out of a movie like this?

In the end, it is a shame that “Boy Kills World” only made 3 million bucks at the box office, because it is one of my favorite films of the year so far. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite comedies of last year, “Bottoms,” not only because it delivers on laughs, but because it is set in a world that makes up an occasionally absurd set of rules that I can somehow buy into. If you want to see action that pushes the limits, this movie is for you. If you are not a fan of blood, violence, gore, or seeing people get killed in creative ways, maybe stay away from this one. But I am a sick person, so this movie was certainly for me. I am going to give “Boy Kills World” an 8/10.

“Boy Kills World” is unfortunately, not playing in many theaters right now. I checked for showtimes in Los Angeles and New York City and could not find anything. If you live where I live, in Massachusetts, there is one theater playing it in Rockport right now. Not sure where else it is playing. But if it is playing near you, see it. I endorse this film. Otherwise, you can preorder it right now to watch on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Challengers!” Stay tuned! Also, be sure to check out my reviews for “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” “IF,” and “The Garfield Movie.” 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 “Boy Kills World?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year you wish more people were aware of? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Civil War (2024): Alex Garland’s Most Dramatically Immersive Film Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Civil War” is directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and stars Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man, Wimbledon), Wagner Moura (Elite Squad, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Pacific Rim: Uprising), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Dune, Lady Bird), Sonoya Mizuno (House of the Dragon, Devs), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder). This film is set in a dystopian future United States and centers around a group of people trying to make it to Washington, DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

As I have said on this blog before, some of my favorite directors working today include Christopher Nolan, Damien Chazelle, and Quentin Tarantino. Those are usually the big three that come to mind. Although one director I happen to admire somewhere down that list is Alex Garland. I love his directorial debut, “Ex Machina.” A film that has become increasingly relevant and captivating with age. Looking back at his sophomore directorial effort, “Annihilation,” I think that film is a slight step down. But there is a lot that works in that film. Visually, it is uniquely stunning. Natalie Portman does a great job in the lead role. As an experience, I found parts of the film trippy, intriguing, and even a little terrifying. Looking back, it also has one of the better musical scores of the past decade. As for Alex Garland’s next movie, “Men,” I cannot say I hated it… In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, it is a thumbs up. The actors do a good job. The color palette and overall aesthetic pops. But it felt like there was something missing from that film. It lacked an oomph of sorts. Naturally, I was curious about “Civil War.” Even with that in mind, I was not fully sure where to set my expectations. I thought this movie could go one way or another. It was either gonna stand out in such a positive way or in such a negative way. Turns out, it does both.

“Civil War” is not a movie I am going to recommend for everyone. If you are looking to have a good time, then maybe go see something else. I am not saying that “Civil War” is a terrible movie. It is far from being bad. But if anything, it reminds me of when I watched say “12 Years a Slave,” which to a certain degree, is not the happiest watch. The two movies are completely different in terms of plot and execution, but they deliver similar feelings of uneasiness. This movie made me feel genuinely uncomfortable. There are scenes in this film where I am tittering in my seat because the context of said scene is frankly disturbing to say the least. And honestly, and I mean this as a compliment in regards to “Civil War,” some of those scenes feel real. Or if not real, genuine enough to the point where I believe it could happen. This is especially true for one scene that has caught my attention since first watching the trailer.

If you saw the marketing for “Civil War,” you have probably seen Jesse Plemons on screen. He plays an ultranationalist and he owns the role to the tenth degree. I am sure Plemons is the nicest of guys in real life, but I would never want to come across this character in my travels. His portrayal of this character, simply known as “Soldier,” is delivered with subtlety, but even his calm mannerisms pack a punch. Whenever he is on screen, I am simply waiting to hear a pin drop, or anything else that would get me to jump out of my chair. I know I just saw “Abigail,” which by definition, is a horror movie prominently featuring a vampire. But I have to be real, compared to Abigail, Plemons’s character is nightmare fuel.

The strongest point for “Civil War” is how easy it is for me to feel like I’m in the middle of the action. I saw this movie in IMAX, and of the IMAX experiences I had, this is one of the more interesting ones. Because when I go to IMAX, I go for the thrills, the chills, and the excitement that, like the opening countdown suggests, CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGES and EARTH-SHATTERING SOUND can bring. This movie was almost too loud at times, but I also think that from Garland’s point of view, that was on purpose. The gunfire, explosions, and all the other ruckus of war were dialed up to an 11 to the point where I felt like I was there. Part of me assumed I was actually in the moment with Kirsten Dunst or whoever else was on screen at the time.

Kirsten Dunst plays Lee (left rear), a photojournalist. When it comes to defining a main character for “Civil War,” it seems as if there are limited solid options on the table. This movie is a controversy generator, but I will note that when it comes to selecting a main character, a photojournalist like Lee is a smart choice. Lee is active enough to the point where she is technically involved in the war, but her job basically keeps her from picking a side. Dunst is well cast in the role and delivers quite a performance. She does a good job.

The film may be called “Civil War,” but at its core, you could argue that this film is essentially a road trip movie. It is about a group of characters trying to get from point A to point B with the intentions of running into as few obstacles as possible. Along for the ride is Wagner Moura as Joel (right front), a Reuters journalist. Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (left front), a New York Times journalist and Lee’s mentor, and Cailee Spaeny as Jessie Cullen (right rear), an aspiring photographer. All of these actors fit into their roles nicely and have good chemistry. Casting-wise, this movie hit the jackpot.

As I said earlier, “Civil War” is a movie that stands out to me in both a positive and negative way. In addition to the balance between the thrills and all around discomfort this movie brings to the table, this notion also stands true for its technical aspects. I have already talked about how the sound does its job while also coming off as one of the movie’s drawbacks. But much like the sound, the film editing has my brain driving itself in circles.

There are points in this movie that had me thinking to myself that the editing is not just great, it is a contender to win an Oscar next year. In fact, the editing in this film, in addition to being perfectly paced, spectacularly highlights the power of photojournalism. This is something that is personal to me as someone who has spent the past year working in news, but also as someone who has taken journalism classes in college. But if I have one thing to say about the final edit, it is that there are a couple of music choices that are about out of left field. I think the film’s music, for the most part, works. But there are one or two instances where I found myself perplexed.

As for the film’s reflectiveness of our society, obviously there are moments that feel genuine enough that remind me of the world we live in today. But as for the idea that California and Texas could unite in war anytime soon, I found that to be a bit of a fantasy. At the same time though, I do not entirely care that they are in this war together. If this film felt more genuine than it is, chances are it would generate more controversy than it already unleashing amongst its audiences. I went to see a movie with a friend of mine in March. One of the trailers was for “Civil War.” Based on what she saw, she thought this movie should never have happened. Based on her words, I gathered she thought a movie like this could potentially be dangerous. Personally, I can see where she is coming from. This is why, again, if you are looking for are a looking for an escape, maybe this is not the movie for you. As for me, I think “Civil War” is one of the better films of the year. It is not quite on the level of say “Dune Part Two,” but much like that recent science fiction masterpiece, “Civil War” is technically powerful and delivers a one of a kind experience.

In the end, “Civil War” is not going to be a film I will end up watching on a Friday night anytime soon, but I am glad I checked it out. It is a film that is huge in scope, massive in world-building, but in terms of the overall premise, it is as simple as can be. The story is nothing more than just journeying from point A to B and making sure nobody dies along the way. The cast is well-rounded and marvelously put together. Jesse Plemons, despite not having an official credit, practically steals the show. Nick Offerman also does a good job as the President. I thought he fit the role perfectly. The film is not flawless. In fact, even the aspects of the movie that lean more positive have some glaring negatives attached. When it comes to ranking the Alex Garland movies, this is not as enthralling as “Ex Machina” or as exciting as “Annihilation,” but it is certainly more memorable than “Men.” I am going to give “Civil War” a 7/10.

“Civil War” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! While a lot of people ended up seeing “Civil War” when it came out, my next review on the other hand is for a film that practically no one bothered to watch. That my friends, is “Boy Kills World,” which only made a few million dollars at the box office. I am proud to be one of the lucky individuals that had the pleasure of watching this experience of a flick. I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it with you all. 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 “Civil War?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Alex Garland movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Abigail (2024): Another Epic Win for the Directing Team Behind Ready or Not

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Abigail” is directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet, the same directing team behind the last two “Scream” films and “Ready or Not.” The film stars Melissa Barrera (Scream, Vida), Dan Stevens (Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Lisa Frankenstein), Will Catlett (Love Is, Black Lightning), Kevin Durand (The Strain, Dark Angel), Angus Cloud (Euphoria, Your Lucky Day), Alisha Weir (Matilda the Musical, Fia’s Fairies), and Giancarlo Esposito (Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, Breaking Bad). This film is mostly set in a house where a group of criminals who kidnapped the ballerina daughter of a powerful underworld figure come to the realization that there is more to this girl than meets the eye.

Before we begin this review, I want to remind everyone that if I had to name a favorite horror movie of the past five years, chances are my answer would be “Ready or Not,” helmed by this film’s directing duo, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet. What made the film work for me is that in addition to all of the blood, gore, and occasional violence, there was a sense of unease in every scene. And part of it is because of how the script tends to handle Samara Weaving’s character, Grace. Because her situation makes her the outlier amongst a sea of rich, snobby monsters. Specifically, the one where she must win a game of hide and seek to avoid getting killed by recently mentioned rich, snobby monsters.

This time around, Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet are helming a story that comes off as an antithesis of sorts to the “Ready or Not” structure. But it does not mean there are not similarities between the two titles. For one thing, both movies slap. Truthfully, “Abigail” might end up being one of my favorite movies this year. I can say this is some of the most fun I have had at the movies in months. If you are looking for something that will make you laugh, grab your attention, and question everything that is going on, “Abigail” might be a great watch for you.

What makes “Abigail” different from “Ready or Not?” For one thing, whereas “Ready or Not” is a tale of one against many, “Abigail” is a tale of many against one. Also, in “Abigail,” we tend to know more about our protagonists’ history of rebelling and breaking the law. “Ready or Not’s” Grace, as far as the movie can suggest, does not really have much of a criminal history. It is never highlighted, therefore I would have to assume if she did have one, it is not that heavy or important. In other words, Grace seems like a good egg. Much of the movie dives into these characters’ backstories and I would have to say the way they go about it had me engaged. Sometimes, the movie lingers too long on the backstories, in fact, it almost lingers long enough that at times, it had me wondering when exactly the movie is going to get into gear, but it does not change my overall attachment to the characters themselves.

By the way, the cast for this film is quite good. The film is marvelously led by Melissa Barrera, who kills it as the character of Joey. Alongside her, you of course have Kathryn Newton, who is becoming a bit of scream queen now with this movie on her resume in addition to “Lisa Frankenstein” and “Freaky,” both of which I enjoyed. There’s Giancarlo Esposito, who I’ve particularly enjoyed in “The Mandalorian.” I am glad to see him here. This movie is also likely going to introduce a fresh young talent to the world, Alisha Weir.

While she does not have a ton of credits just yet, I have a strong feeling that her performance in “Abigail” as the title character is going to change that. Weir plays a centuries old vampire who takes the form of a 12 year old girl. Oh, and she’s also a ballerina, because why not?… I love this movie. This role gives Weir plenty to bring to the table in terms of her delivery and her physicality. There is always this sense of unpredictability when watching this character. You just never know what she is going to say, what she is going to do, who exactly she is going to kill. Abigail is a beautifully unhinged mastermind of a 12 year old girl. While M3gan is probably going to end up being the more popular “dancing horror villain” by the end of this decade, I think I have a greater fondness for the Abigail character for how much the movie successfully handles its cute but not cuddly approach with her.

Of course, this movie is bloody and gory to the tenth degree. That should not come as much of a surprise. But even with that in mind, part of me could not believe just how much blood and gore this movie delivered at times. But again, I should have seen this coming from the team who did “Ready or Not.” A movie featuring some of the bloodiest explosions of all time. The movie just gets more beautifully disgusting as it goes, then when it hits the climax, oh boy, is it glorious! And much like this duo’s 2019 masterpiece, this film successfully blends horror and comedy to a perfect degree. This movie is scary. Not quite as scary as “Ready or Not,” I would say the terror itself is a bit on the lighter side in certain moments. But the movie is also very clever on the jokes. There are times where I found myself laughing hard. You could almost put this horror movie in a camp category. But the reality is that as I watched this film, every moment felt like it belonged in a story of its kind. There are campy, abnormal moments. But even those felt like moments that I could buy into. This movie made me convinced that in its world, a ballerina vampire like Abigail could exist. The movie clearly plays her up, gives her some over the top lines and exchanges with her fellow castmates, but for some reason, all of it clicks.

If you saw the trailer for “Abigail” and thought that maybe they should have saved the big hook regarding the title character for the movie itself, I kind of get where you are coming from, but as far as I am concerned, that is sort of what sold me from the start. As far as WHAT THEY DO with that hook, I can tell you it makes the movie worth your time and money. I had a great time with this movie, and if you like blood and gore, I am certain you will too.

In the end, “Abigail” is a ton of fun. It kind of takes me back to 2022, because in that year, I just so happened to stumble upon one great horror film after another. From “The Black Phone” to “Smile” to “Pearl.” “Abigail” is on that level for me. After seeing two bloody fantastic original horror titles from Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet, it only makes more excited for what other tricks they have up their sleeve. Between a newlywed playing hide and seek against her in-laws who are part of a so-called gaming dominion and now a bunch of criminals trying to keep a ballerina vampire at bay, these two are onto something with taking crazy concepts and unleashing their best possible outcome. After seeing “Ready or Not” and now “Abigail,” maybe I will go back and give their “Scream” movies a shot. Who knows? I am going to give “Abigail” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Civil War,” which so far, is one of the year’s most talked about films. Why not have one more voice in the conversation? Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “Boy Kills World,” “Challengers,” “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” and “IF.” 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 “Abigail?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Ready or Not?” If not, what are you doing with your life? Let me know your thoughts on the movie if you have seen it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!