#Movie

Saturday Night (2024): Some of the Most Stressfully Exciting 90 Minutes in Cinematic History

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Saturday Night” is directed by Jason Reitman (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Juno) and stars Gabriel LaBelle (Snack Shack, The Fabelmans), Rachel Sennott (Bottoms, Bodies Bodies Bodies), Cory Michael Smith (Call Jane, 1985), Ella Hunt (Dickinson, Cold Feet), Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Maze Runner), Emily Fairn (Mary & George, The Responder), Matt Wood (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Difficult People), Lamorne Harris (Call Me Kat, New Girl), Kim Matula (LA to Vegas, The Bold and the Beautiful), Finn Wolfhard (It, Stranger Things), Nicolaus Braun (Zola, Succession), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza, Wildcat), Andrew Barth Feldman (No Hard Feelings, A Tourist’s Guide to Love), Kaia Gerber (Bottoms, American Horror Stories), Tommy Dewey (Casual, The Mindy Project), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Matthew Rhys (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, The Post), and JK Simmons (Spider-/Man, Whiplash). This film is a showcase of the chaotic 90 minutes leading up to the production of the first episode of “Saturday Night Live.”

People look at “Saturday Night Live” today with a mix of opinions. Of course, when a television series of its notability has been around for several decades, chances are that not everyone is going to have the same thoughts on it, and there may be moments some find to be better than others. I often find myself going back and watching the series’ gutbusting “Celebrity Jeopardy!” bits with Norm MacDonald as Burt Reynolds and Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery. Those sketches are comedy gold and I find myself quoting it on a regular basis. I have even used one of those bits as part of my Film Improvements segment during the 5th Jack Awards. But the movie “Saturday Night” dives into a time long before that when the show had its humble beginnings. The film has a star-studded cast including Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, and Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster just to name a few people. Audiences of all kinds know the names of these characters today, but this movie is kind of an underdog story about a bunch of nobodies. One of the most positive things I can say about “Saturday Night” is that it easily gets me to root for its cast to do anything and everything they can just to make it on the air by 11:30. The film definitely has a Hollywoodized feel to it at times, but I think it works because some of the hyped up situations definitely add to the entertainment of everything on screen.

For those who do not know, since 2023 I have worked in live television, particularly local news. So while I might say the film “Broadcast News” is sometimes more specifically reflective of my work environment, even though that movie came out years before I was born, “Saturday Night” also does a great job at encapsulating the vibe of working in a live production. This film dives into the first episode of “Saturday Night Live,” but I must say as someone who has been working in local news for almost a couple years now, even when the formula may be familiar, there have been times that feel as if we are making a live broadcast for the first time. After all, there is so much that has to be done for several shows in a single streak of hours. Therefore, something down the line is bound to screw itself up. It is unavoidable. Sometimes it is my fault. Sometimes it is someone else’s bad. Sometimes it is a technical problem. But one thing I will note about my job is that we are lucky that we have a schedule that is set in stone. Sure, not everything goes right, but there is a lot that does. We have a history of shows behind us, and planned broadcasts for the hours ahead. We have a good team of people who all do their job as best as they can and offer excellent results. But our crew in “Saturday Night” learns that they are potentially going to be sidelined by a rerun for “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.” They might not even have a first broadcast.

There are so many things that this crew has to deal with in just a span of 90 minutes… Making sure the entire cast is ready to go. Convincing John Belushi to tolerate being in costume. Figuring out what to cut for time. Standing outside the building and trying to get people to join a live studio audience. Trying to sell the show to various affiliates. This entire film is a stress streak from start to finish. It is anxiety-inducing. The movie contains a moment or two that allow the audience audience to breathe. There are slower moments in the movie, but even in those scenes there is a sense of everlasting tension. There is a wonder if certain wrongs will be made right.

I mentioned this film has a star-studded cast, so chances are you are going to recognize at least one name on the list. But my favorite performance in the film is from Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase. From the moment I witnessed this son of a gun fall to the floor, get back up, and so casually utter the words, “Sorry, tripped over my penis,” I knew we were in for something special. Even though he has a legacy, I have heard about some of the controversy surrounding Chase, such as when he was on “Community.” Having heard about that almost makes this movie, and this particular performance, just a tad funnier. Although that makes me wonder how this movie will sit with certain people, because it reminds me of how hyper-obsessively knowing about certain comic book movie news stories over the years made me appreciate “Deadpool & Wolverine” in a way that I imagine some people would not. It makes me question how well the movie will age.

Also, Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels is a superb pick. This is a young, fresh actor who I would guess not everybody knows at this point, and I think some people will still not know a few months later, but I hope this review helps a soul or two get to know him, because he is talented. Michaels is the center of this rollercoaster of a film, and you can tell that in every single frame, he is nervous about whatever crazy derailment could come up. And those nerves rubbed off on me. This is a young guy with a lot of potential. But the thing about potential is that not everyone has seen it. Even though this is based on events that happened and I had an idea of how things in this movie would go, I was rooting for Michaels and crew to unleash said potential by the end of the film.

I also want to bring up the ending of the film. It is one of those endings that had me perplexed, yet satisfied. Because it comes out of nowhere, but it also closes on a note where anything after it is practically bonus content. The main story finishes by the time we get to said ending, but it comes at me like a bullet. It feels jarring. Given time to marinate though, I love what they did with the ending. I will not go into detail for those wanting to see the movie, but between the timing of the dialogue and the credits music, I am having a hard time imagining this movie capping things off better than it did. On the note of the music though, Jon Batiste, who actually has some recent variety TV experience as the bandleader on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” for seven years, does the score for “Saturday Night,” and it is perfect. At times it is subtle, but it is almost a character of its own in the film. Just thinking about parts of it gives me chills and nerves.

One good question to ask is whether this movie is a good watch for people who for whatever reason, have not seen an episode or sketch from “Saturday Night Live.” I think this film will definitely land harder for those who have seen some of the sketches, some of the episodes. That is for sure. But I think those who have not seen “Saturday Night Live” can still get plenty of laughs out of this film. Because if you have not picked it up already, this is not “Saturday Night Live” in movie form. It is not like “Jackass” or “Impractical Jokers,” two shows starring real people that end up taking their show’s format and converting it into a feature film. This is not this generation’s version of “Movie 43” so to speak… This is instead a buildup into how “Saturday Night Live” became what it is. This is, again, an underdog story, and I think a lot of people can appreciate those. And of course, there’s laughs, there’s tension, there’s a lot of big stars. Heck, JK Simmons makes an appearance in this movie, which I was not expecting at all. And I really was not expecting him to be cast in the kind of role in which he was picked to play. At one point he is just dancing like a moron, and he plays it up so well that I am laughing not because of the physical movements, but the guy doing said physical movements. I often pick apart animated movies nowadays for an overreliance on star power, but this is a movie that uses star power like few others I have seen recently, and I would say it does a great job with it. The cast is stacked and everyone plays their part to a T.

Maybe you know the names Kaia Gerber or Willem Dafoe or Dylan O’Brien. But what makes this movie is not the stars, it is the compelling narrative, ferocious pace, and laugh out loud funny comedy that honestly could match the feeling of a watching a spectacular “Saturday Night Live” episode at home on your couch or on your bed.

In the end, “Saturday Night” is an utter delight. I absolutely loved this movie. Granted, I am a bit biased because I work in live television so it kind of reminded me of the environment in which find myself on a regular basis. These are for two very different programs, but when putting two and two together, I found some commonalities. This was a movie that from scene one takes you on a ride, and I did not want it to end. That said, when it did end, I was satisfied and infatuated with what I saw. Does it sometimes feel hyperbolic in its execution? Perhaps. That’s probably my biggest critique, but the movie still works with that feeling intact sometimes. “Saturday Night” has the vibe, filmmaking style, and comedic flair of “The Disaster Artist,” but it uses those ideas and presents them in a movie with the pacing of “Speed” starring Keanu Reeves. I am going to give “Saturday Night” a 9/10.

For those sticking around, I wanted to end on this note because what I am about to say was intended as a part of the review, but it ultimately become a bit of a tangent. Nevertheless, I am proud of it. So I kept it here for you all to read.

This film is led by Gabriel LaBelle, who is still in the early days of his career, but he is proving himself to be a fine talent. But I am impressed by his luck, if you can call it that, in terms of his resume. Because a couple years ago he starred as the lead of “The Fabelmans,” which is an excellent movie by the way. For those who did not see the movie, it is directed by Steven Spielberg and is loosely based on his life. In that film’s case, LaBelle ends up playing a version if you will of Spielberg in his youth. Now, he has gone from playing one of the most iconic filmmakers of all time to playing perhaps one of the most impactful TV creators of all time. I would not imagine people today know Lorne Michaels like they know the name Steven Spielberg, but it does not change the fact that Lorne Michaels has become one of variety TV’s staples over the years. Whatever your definition of variety TV is, I will leave that up to you. However, to this day, “Saturday Night Live” is still doing weekly episodes. NBC’s “Late Night” format is still kicking with Seth Meyers at this point, who I would say is doing a very good job. I particularly think his “A Closer Look” segments are well timed and always end on a high note. It makes me wonder what is next for LaBelle. Is he going to take on notable game show hosts next and play young Alex Trebek? I think he’d do an okay job with that. They’re both Canadian! Just an idea! Heck, he could probably play Bob Eubanks! Peter Tomarkan! I could even see him as Pat Sajak! LaBelle has chops, I am just saying!

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis,” his passion project which has now been in theaters for several weeks. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance.” 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 “Saturday Night?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Saturday Night Live” sketch? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Wild Robot (2024): DreamWorks’ Incredible Story On the Beauty and Struggles of Parenting

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Wild Robot” is directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Kit Connor (His Dark Materials, Heartstopper), Bill Nighy (Emma., The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice), Matt Berry (The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, What We Do in the Shadows) and Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible). This film is about a robot who goes by its product name, ROZZUM Unit 7134, or “Roz” for short. The story dives into Roz’s adventures in the wild, including an unexpected encounter with a baby goose, which leads to her becoming said goose’s parent. Now she must do all she can to master something that goes beyond her programming.

“The Wild Robot” is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It is easily my most anticipated animated film of the year. I have been super excited for this film ever since I saw the teaser trailer before watching “Kung Fu Panda 4” in the theater. The footage contained tons of beautiful shots, an interesting color scheme, and even though it did not give a lot the story away, I had a strong feeling this movie was going to be deep. It was going to make the audience think. I had a feeling that “The Wild Robot” would be the 2020s version of “Wall-E,” both in terms of material and quality. Before I get into my thoughts about the movie, I can say the movie has some similarities to “Wall-E,” it has the same DNA, but it is a much different animal.

“The Wild Robot” is what you get when you strip certain parts of “Wall-E” and insert them into a movie whose story is primarily about parenting. Whereas “Wall-E” is about a robot finding love with another robot and saving a plant, this film is about a robot finding out who she is while also dealing with what some would argue is one of the hardest tasks you can ever be given.

While this movie’s protagonist is dealing with a hard task, it is easy for me to say that “The Wild Robot” is one of the best movies of the year. As far as animated movies go, it is hard to say it gets better than this. As much as I am happy for “Inside Out 2” becoming the biggest animated film of all time, “The Wild Robot” clicked with me more. That said, you cannot go wrong with watching either film. But if I had to pick one, “The Wild Robot” would be my choice.

“The Wild Robot” is perhaps an answer for the parents who are forced to take their children to the theater to watch these kinds of movies. Of course, animated movies often appeal to children, but it should not be forgotten that the parents are probably the ones paying for their tickets. I want to know how parents will view this movie by the time it is over. Because I believe this is a story that will appeal to a lot of them.

I see movies as escapes from reality, so if I were to pitch a movie like this to a parent and tell them that this story is perhaps an encapsulation of something you are already dealing with, there could be a better way to sell it. I do not know. But some of the best movies are those that relate to the audience, that speak to them. They are movies that people can identify with containing characters whose personalities and experiences are similar to their own. I think a lot of parents will find something to relate to when they see the character of Roz and everything she goes through. Now you may be wondering, will kids enjoy this movie? Of course they will! It is funny, it is action-packed at times, and it contains characters that easily appeal to that demographic. The main character is a robot and by her side are a variety of wild animals. Kids love those! For all I know, for some younger viewers, this is going to be one of those movies, kind of like “The Incredibles” was for me, that I enjoyed watching as a kid because of its adventure and action elements, but rewatched as an adult with a greater appreciation for how it handles its characters’ struggles of getting older. I honestly would want to know if parents will have more fun with this movie than their own children. But I can say I saw this movie in a theater full of children on a Sunday morning. They seemed to be positively interacting with it for much of the runtime, so it definitely has their appeal.

I would also like to talk about the voicework of “The Wild Robot.” I have seen the trailers for this film, so I did see the typical casting list where they flash a ton of celebrity names. This movie continues the cliche where we use celebrity voice artists as opposed to certain people who primarily do voicework. Although to be fair some of the cast has some notable voiceover experience, like Mark Hamill. With that in mind, not only does everyone do a good job here, I could not tell that they were voicing their own characters. I almost forgot these actors were in the movie. Sure, I knew Lupita Nyong’o was the lead. But as I heard her voice, it sounded more hyperactive than what I used to hearing from her. I am not sure if she piped herself up or if there is a filter being applied to her recordings in post. But it works. I have seen Pedro Pascal in a number of projects, and I not tell he was Fink the fox. Ving Rhames was also in this movie, and I guarantee many of you reading this recognize his voice. From “Mission: Impossible” on the big screen to the current Arby’s commercials on the small screen, Rhames always has a commanding presence. And his character, Thunderbolt the falcon, is also a great example of such a presence. He sounds bold and god-like with every line. But even then, I could not tell that was Ving Rhames. This is not a dig, if anything it is the highest of compliments.

Even though this movie’s cast is recognizable, most, if not all of these cast members put on a disguisable performance. The movie does a much better job at masking the actors doing these voices than say “DC League of Super Pets,” whose leads’ voices I could recognize and become distracted by in a heartbeat. When the credits rolled, I whispered to myself, “Wait, Mark Hamill was in this?!” Looking back, I believe I knew that in advance. But for one thing, I did not see the trailer in awhile. And again, it goes to show how good these voice performances are. These are characters, not celebrities playing themselves.

Going back to what I said about this film being like “Wall-E,” “The Wild Robot” never specifies when exactly it is set. But I was able to pick up that like “Wall-E,” this movie was set in the future. Both films tend to highlight the mistakes we have made as humans. Whether it is not solving climate change or trying so hard to find a new home to the point where we may have forgotten to preserve the one we have. Also, the central protagonists of these movies are robots, which you could argue we are over-relying on for our many conveniences as we speak. Both “The Wild Robot” and “Wall-E” feature several robots created by large corporations. Both robots who we know as these films’ protagonists serve their respective purposes, but they are also tasked with making people’s lives easier. In the case of “The Wild Robot,” we see that Roz’s attention extends to other animals. Although to be fair, “Wall-E” mostly had human characters. I remember there being a cockroach in the movie, but that may be it.

This film also reminded me of “The Iron Giant.” By that I mean the movie is in a sense an edition of that movie where the roles are reversed. Kind of… If you have ever seen “The Iron Giant,” you would know the robot is the fish out of water character, and the main protagonist, Hogarth, helps him adapt to being on earth. In this film, we see Roz go from adapting to her environment on earth, to teaching a gosling everything she knows. There are plenty of animated movies out there featuring robots. Heck, my last review was for “Transformers One,” and that movie has plenty of them. But I am proud to say that “The Wild Robot” is just as masterful as “Wall-E” and “The Iron Giant,” two movies featuring robots that deserve every ounce of praise that they can possibly get. If you want me to be real though, of these three movies, I think “The Wild Robot” is the weakest of the bunch.

This leads me into my problems with the movie. For one thing, the animation style, while definitely creative, sometimes feels unfinished, perhaps on purpose. Sometimes it works, other times it feels cheap. There are several environments that caught my eye. The design of the robot is well done. I loved seeing how this movie represents foliage in certain scenes, which makes it a proper release for this time of year. But there are also certain places or effects that come off as less textured than others. Part of me also questions the way this movie addresses communication between Roz and the animals. We see Roz spending time translating the animals’ language, so we learn after some time that Roz can understand the animals. But we are seeing Roz communicate and have full-fledged conversations with these animals in English. I get that a lot of movies tend to personify animals and have them speak English. But I am surprised on how well both the robot and these animals understood each other. Perhaps all the conversations were in English for us, the audience. It is a minor complaint, if that. Maybe with a rewatch that complaint will go away. Besides, the movie has good dialogue. It has a lot of funny lines from several characters, even those who barely appear in the film at all.

The script itself is an impressive look at what it is like to be a parent. I say this as if I have kids. I do not. But from what I have heard and seen about parenting, this movie presents parenting as a concept that no one really understands until they try it, until they do it. There is a moment where Roz finds out she is the first point of contact of a newborn gosling. Pinktail, a possum played by Catherine O’Hara, explains to Roz that she is now said gosling’s mother. Roz responds by saying she does not have the programming, to which Pinktail tells her “No one does.” I was a first-born child. I can only imagine what my parents were thinking when they first had me. I am sure they were happy, but also in a neverending state of asking questions. I probably presented them with situations that they did not see coming. Even if I was a second-born child, chances are I could have done the same thing. But I recognize that raising me was a learning curve. I can only imagine how hard it is for Roz, who is not only of a different kind than the gosling, who we eventually know to go by the name Brightbill, but is programmed specifically for helping humans. Did she ask for something like this to happen? No she did not. But she handles it as best she can because while parenting is not in her programming, as a robot she is designed to complete tasks, and to her, this is just the latest one she has been given.

It is also rather refreshing to see an animated movie about a parental figure like this. When I look back at DreamWorks’ animated slate for example, the movies are normally about younger or childless characters. Sure, Shrek and Fiona have children, but they progress to that point after multiple movies. Yes, you can say Hiccup from “How to Train Your Dragon” is parent-like, but his relationship sometimes presents itself somewhat similarly to that of an owner and their pet as opposed to a parent and child. That, and the first film spends time showing complications between Hiccup and his own father. Although in “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World,” the movie ends on a note that is perhaps reminiscent of what it must feel like for a child to leave the nest after so many years. Age is not the biggest topic or concern in “The Wild Robot,” but whereas we have seen several movies of this nature where there is a mentor figure hanging somewhere in the background, maybe as a prominent supporting character, Roz, our main hero sort of becomes a mentor figure herself. Yes, she is a fish out of water, and you could also argue that Fink the fox and other characters are helping Roz in her journey. But it is nevertheless refreshing to see a movie of this kind where we focus on Roz’s concern on whether her goose will be able to fly, as opposed to one where the goose must learn how to fly no matter the cost.

And it is not like the movie refuses to give depth to Brightbill the goose. The movie decently highlights his journey and his individualities. This movie represents a journey that many parents can relate to, but also does a great job at showing Brightbill’s struggles of fitting in. He is kind of an outcast. Not only did I see his struggles that came with being different, but in the case of a character like Roz, I could only imagine her struggle realizing how others treat her child times. But this is ultimately not Brightbill’s movie, it is Roz’s movie. And I can guarantee, Roz’s movie is a fantastic one.

In the end, “The Wild Robot” is one of the year’s finest films. The animation is sometimes iffy, and the climax feels oddly bigger than I would have expected out of a film like this, but it does not change the fact that this is one of DreamWorks’ most unique movies. Is it my favorite DreamWorks animation? Probably not. Given time to marinate over the past week I thought of a few movies I enjoyed more. The first two “Kung Fu Panda” movies come to mind. “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” has gotten a few watches out of yours truly since its release nearly two years ago. “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” is one of those films that came out at a perfect time for me and I find it to be a marvelous story. But if I had to round out my top 5 DreamWorks Animations, “The Wild Robot” would probably be up there at this point. And it deserves to be. It is a deep story showcasing both the beauty and the struggles of parenting. It is about a robot who learns to become more than what it was designed to be. It is a movie that kids will probably enjoy when they are younger, but will probably see in a different way as they age. If there is one movie in theaters you should see right now, this might be it. I am going to give “The Wild Robot” a 9/10.

“The Wild Robot” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new sequel, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” which I will give some credit, the movie is prompting conversations. As far as whether my addition to the conversation is positive or negative, you will find out about that soon enough. 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 “The Wild Robot?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your favorite DreamWorks Animations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024): A Long-Awaited, Gorgeously Convoluted Sequel to Tim Burton’s 1988 Horror Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is directed by Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and stars Michael Keaton (Batman, Spider-Man: Homecoming), Winona Ryder (Little Women, The Age of Innocence), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Schitt’s Creek), Justin Theroux (The Girl on the Train, The LEGO Ninjago Movie), Monica Bellucci (The Passion of the Christ, The Matrix Reloaded) Jenna Ortega (Wednesday, Jane the Virgin), and Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse). This film is the sequel to the 1988 film “Beetlejuice” and follows the Deetz family as three generations return home to Winter River. Meanwhile, Lydia Deetz’s life turns upside down when her daughter, Astrid, accidentally opens the portal to the Afterlife.

Much like this summer’s “Twisters,” I perhaps got around to “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” out of pure luck. Why? Much like the original “Twister,” I only saw the original “Beetlejuice” once. And I managed to watch 1996’s “Twister” just days before its follow-up released. The same can also be said for 1988’s “Beetlejuice.” As for my thoughts on that original film, I found it to be clever and it occasionally delivered a few chuckles. The production design and costumes are also pretty good. But it is not my favorite Tim Burton movie. That said, I did watch the marketing for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” and was somewhat captivated by it, even before seeing the original film. It looked like a good time, funny, and aesthetically pleasing.

For the record, I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” on its opening weekend in September. One of the first positives I can say about “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” and this is a timely one, is that it set the mood for spooky season. I love fall. I love this time of year. Especially as someone who lives in New England and has high standards for foliage. One tree’s trash is another man’s treasure. Speaking of my mood, this movie starts off by putting me in a good one. While the movie feels somewhat updated compared to the original, it is easy to tell it is part of the same universe, and it all starts with the intro credits. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” starts off in the best possible way it can. It kicks things off pretty similar to the original, where you have the opening credits, a series of nice-looking shots, and Danny Elfman’s awesome music booming in the background. It is very much a successful welcome back to this universe similar to how “Top Gun: Maverick” welcomed audiences back a couple years ago with some similar musical choices to its original counterpart.

Much like the original, Michael Keaton steals the show as Beetlejuice. He is funny, over the top, and gives it his all in the role. This is Keaton’s latest long-awaited comeback as a character he played in the 1980s. You may recall he reprised his role as Batman last year in “The Flash.” While I did not despise Keaton as Batman in “The Flash,” Keaton shines much brighter this time around as Beetlejuice. He is delightfully kooky and captures my attention every second he is on screen.

While this movie does see the return of actors like Winona Ryder, Catherine O’Hara, and the recently mentioned Michael Keaton, I was intrigued by the newer characters too. Believe it or not, I never watched “Wednesday” or the recent “Scream” movies so I was not fully familiar with Jenna Ortega’s resume. The only major role of hers I have seen was in 2022’s “X.” But I am delighted to say Ortega does an okay job in her role. I thought while her character was written with some cliches, I thought Ortega played her part well. I was invested in her role. She also develops a connection with a character named Jeremy Frazier, played by Arthur Conti. Their connection takes the story in a much deeper direction than I was anticipating. But while I appreciated the depth of the story by the time we get to see these two together, there are some things in this movie that I would have preferred to be cleaned up.

The biggest problem I have with “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is that this movie tries to shove so much into one project. This movie is on the shorter side, with a runtime of 104 minutes. But at times it feels longer. There are scenes in this film that go on for what feels like an eternity. Again, I had fun with this movie. But not only do scenes overplay, but there are so many story elements going on at the same time that “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” falls into the typical sequel trap where it tends to go bigger, but unfortunately, not better. I cannot pinpoint to an element that breaks the movie beyond repair, but there is nevertheless so much going on.

Speaking of a lot of things going on, this film at times comes off as tonally inconsistent. To repeat what I said recently, the film is fun. That said, it is not all fun all the time. And when the tones shift, that transition feels nearly seismic. There are instances, particularly in the beginning of the film, that came off as serious. The movie’s serious moments were not as well executed as I would have hoped. They did not invest me as heavily as the moments that followed. As for the moments that followed, those are the moments that I came to the movie hoping to see and just so happened to be pleased by. The start of the film, perhaps the first half hour or so, feels dark and gloomy. However, I should not pretend this is not exactly dissimilar to the original film, where within the first ten minutes, we see a couple drive off a bridge and die. But even when that happens, there is a sense of wonder, a sense of mystery, a sense of fun. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” in comparison starts off making me wonder when the fun begins.

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has some clever concepts and ideas. I like the direction in which they took Lydia Deetz’s character. We now see her hosting a show called Ghost House, which deals with the supernatural. One concept that stuck with me by the end of the film is a Soul Train that takes passengers to the Great Beyond. It is not just called that because of something that could happen to your soul, but there’s a cool sequence where we see tons of people around said train dancing to soul music. I think by the end of the film, that becomes one of the concepts that feels overdone, but still, it was clever.

As for other positives in the film, Willem Dafoe does a good job as Wolf Jackson, I thought he brought some energy to the project. The color palette of this film is gorgeously vivid and immersive. It is truly eye-popping at times. Like I said regarding the original, the sets in this film are also a work of art. They are otherworldly and offer some extensively pleasing detail. This film aces its looks, but falters a tad when it comes to its personality. It comes off as somebody you know, perhaps a good friend, trying too hard to please or impress you. While they may be partially successful in said task, part of you wants them to calm down. Their point has been established and their task has been accomplished eons ago, so to speak.

In the end, I am glad I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” Does it feel like a movie only Tim Burton could make? For the most part I would say yes. But the movie is ultimately a series of ideas that sometimes works and at others, fail to stick the landing. If you liked Michael Keaton in the original film, you will like him in this one. He does a fantastic job as Beetlejuice. I am not one of those people who hails the original “Beetlejuice” as an all timer or as my favorite Tim Burton project, but I think this sequel is a step down from its 1988 predecessor. If I had to pick a film to watch tonight between the two, my pick is the original. I did not hate “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” There are moments to appreciate, but it is nowhere even close to being flawless. I am going to give “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for a couple animated films, “Transformers One” and “The Wild Robot!” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Beetlejuice” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Quiet Place: Day One (2024): The Most Thrilling Quiet Place Film Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Quiet Place: Day One” is written and directed by Michael Sarnoski (Pig, The Testimony) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 12 Years a Slave), Joseph Quinn (Stranger Things, Dickensian), Alex Wolff (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Hereditary), and Djimon Hounsou (Guardians of the Galaxy, Gladiator). This film is a prequel set in the “Quiet Place” universe and it is set during the first day a bunch of supersonic-hearing creatures known as the Death Angels touch down on earth. With the stakes getting higher as she goes, it is up to to a young woman named Sam to navigate around New York City and do all she can to survive this unfamiliar situation.

I love New York City. Honestly, if you were to ask me what my favorite place in the world happens to be, chances are that New York City could take the cake. It is rich in history, has a solid transit system, there are plenty of things to do, and there’s lots of great food everywhere you look from many different walks of life.

By the way, if you and I are in New York City, do not even dare suggest we go eat at the Times Square Olive Garden. I’ve got Olive Garden at home, and as an Italian, there are so many other places I’d rather spend my time and money. Now with my brief snobbery out of the way, let’s talk about how this links to “A Quiet Place: Day One.” This movie just so happens to be set in New York City. And I think for a story like this, it is the perfect location. Because as much as I love New York City, one common complaint I found from venturing certain parts of the city, especially around midtown, is the noise. There’s lots of people, lots of honking, lots of background chatter. If you are looking for quiet parts of NYC, they definitely exist. I’ve been in a couple. But if you go in the busier or more active parts of the city, do not expect an oasis of serenity. Now with these creatures coming down to earth, this presents New York’s absolute epitome of a threat because it is near impossible to be quiet there.

That said, in the back of my mind, I was a tad hesitant when they were making a “Quiet Place” prequel. For starters, “A Quiet Place Part II” was a step down from the original for me, so I was somewhat worried that this could suffer from also being a lesser product. But on top of that, John Krasinski is not directing this time around. Not only has Krasinski proven to be a great actor-turned-director in recent years, but this franchise is practically his baby. He has done a ton of work in front of the camera, and even more behind the camera. Yet at the same time, the more I think about it, maybe this is exactly what this property needed. A fresh idea from a fresh face. Sure, Krasinski is still involved, given how he has a story by credit. But this film is also written and directed by Michael Sarnoski, who previously helmed “Pig” starring Nicolas Cage. Honestly, maybe this whole shakeup behind the screens and shift in the timeline was worth it, because I have to say this is my favorite “Quiet Place” movie yet. It brings something new to the franchise we have not seen yet, but it does so without steering too far away from what makes the other movies enjoyable.

Now, I will admit, the first “Quiet Place” has a feel to it that can best be described as groundbreaking. It is a very simple story with concepts that feel familiar, but the execution comes off like nothing I have ever seen. Not only was it a movie that was able to immerse me in a world of complete silence, but as an audience member, the film prompted me to remain silent myself. Not that I fail to do that during my moviegoing adventures, but as someone who gets a popcorn and soda whenever I go to the movies, I could not help but slowly dissolve said popcorn with my tongue or take small sips of said soda when the opportunities presented themselves. This is a feeling that returned with “A Quiet Place Part II,” and I could say the same happened here at times. But of the three movies released in this franchise so far, I think this is the one that probably emitted such a feeling the least. For one thing, it takes some time to get into the nitty gritty. This film is fantastically paced, but nevertheless, it takes some time for the action to go down. Also, this is a prequel film set when this whole universe’s primary inciting incident first occurs. So, we see that people are not even close to adapting to the environment we see in the other films.

The “Quiet Place” franchise is a case in point as to the whole show don’t tell philosophy of filmmaking, and “A Quiet Place: Day One” continues that trend. Not only did just about every line of the minimally spoken script come off as essential to the story, but this film’s cast all do a good job at delivering said lines. Lupita Nyong’o is one of the finest actresses working today, and this is yet another win on her resume. She puts on quite a marvelous performance as the character of Sam. But like a lot of good movies with great performances, the script certainly does her favors. Nyong’o’s character is well written. We find out she has late-stage cancer, has a therapy cat, and the movie does a good job at getting you to feel sympathy for her. You really want to see her succeed, even if part of her end goal involves simply getting to eat pizza in the city, particularly at Patsy’s, a joint in Harlem.

In several franchises, there is often a tendency, for better or worse, to make the films that follow the previous ones bigger in scale. There’s often the saying, bigger is better, which if you have read my review for “The Matrix Reloaded,” that is not entirely true. Of the three “Quiet Place” movies, “A Quiet Place: Day One” certainly feels the biggest of them all. In fact, if you look at the numbers, they just go onto support my case. “A Quiet Place: Day One” cost $67 million to make. That is $6 million more than “A Quiet Place Part II.” Of course, this prequel has a decent number of actors in its cast compared to the original, which cost $17 million. After all, people gotta eat.

Each of these movies are all tied together by one key motivation for the characters, and that is to survive against the Death Angels. That has not changed in this film, and honestly, what makes this adventure so riveting is knowing that our heroes, or even innocent civilians, have to adapt to their new environment. In the other “Quiet Place” movies, our characters are caught somewhere in the middle of their respective life-altering event. Seeing such an event play out from the very beginning only makes me wonder if these characters, who for the most part, we do not see in the other movies, make it from point A to B. They do not have the experience necessary to deal with these creatures, so it makes the journey perhaps a little more intense. I love the chemistry we see between Sam and Eric. They make for a good duo. There was one key scene in the middle of the film between these two that is going to stick with me for a long time. It is a simple moment of bonding, but it is done so well.

While I still consider the first film to be the scariest of the franchise, partially because of its novelty, I would have to say “A Quiet Place: Day One” is probably the best character piece of this series. It fleshes out its human characters perfectly, and gives you plenty of background for them, especially for the lead. For these reasons in particular, I can see myself watching this film a second and third time down the road. This is one of my favorite films of the year, and for all I know, it could end up being my favorite horror title of the year if things go in a certain direction.

In the end, “A Quiet Place: Day One” is scary, exciting, and a win for the franchise that I frankly was not expecting. I did not know if this movie was going to be any good going into it. The trailers were not bad, but they did not fully win me over either. The feel of this film was a lot different than I was expecting it to be going in, but little did I know that such a different feel is something that would pay off magnificently. The biggest compliment I can give “A Quiet Place: Day One” is that after the film, it made me want pizza.

And yes, I did get pizza afterwards. I drove quite a distance from my theater to the restaurant, but it was worth it, because it was delicious. I am going to give “A Quiet Place: Day One” an 8/10.

“A Quiet Place: Day One” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews like this, believe me when I tell you I have more coming. I will soon be sharing my thoughts on “MaXXXine,” “Twisters,” “Deadpool & Wolverine,” “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” and “Sing Sing.” 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 “A Quiet Place: Day One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Quiet Place” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Back to Black (2024): A Captivating Performance from Marisa Abela Carries This Musical Biopic from Start to Finish

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Back to Black” is directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson (A Million Little Pieces, Fifty Shades of Grey) and stars Marisa Abela (Industry, She is Love), Jack O’Connell (Unbroken, Money Monster), Eddie Marsen (Ray Donovan, Atomic Blonde), and Lesley Manville (Maleficent, Phantom Thread) in a musical biopic chronicling a large segment of the life of Amy Winehouse and her journey to creating one of the most successful albums of the 21st century.

While they may not be my goto genre, musical biopics are often a type of movie that manages to garner my attention when it comes out. Not only do they tell stories about famed artists people have come to know and love like Elton John in “Rocketman” or Freddie Mercury in “Bohemian Rhapsody,” but those movies often get a lot of attention around awards season. In addition to these actors getting attention during shows like the BAFTAs or the Oscars, if you have ever checked out the 1st or 5th Annual Jack Awards, you would know that some of the acting awards went to lead roles in biopics based on a musician’s real life. One of my favorite lead performances that comes to mind in all the movies I have seen is Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in the 2004 movie “Ray.” While Foxx’s singing in the movie is limited, he did all of his piano playing. Not to mention, there is a certain physicality to his performance. Same goes for Rami Malek in “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Much like Foxx as Ray Charles, Malek did not do all of his own singing as Freddie Mercury. But looking back at some of the real Live Aid concert and the one they make for the movie, it is insane how close of a resemblance Malek is to Mercury himself in terms of physicality. If I have to be real, “Bohemian Rhapsody” was above average, but Malek’s performance carries the film.

Similarly, that is how I feel about “Back to Black.” Do I think the story is good? Yes. Do I like all the characters? I would say so. I think everyone in the movie has their moment. But what sells this movie for me from start to finish is Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse.

One of the best compliments I can give an actor, is that I cannot imagine anybody else in their role. And when it comes to Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse, that thought came across my mind a couple times. Maybe Jenna Ortega could play the role just because she has a certain look to her that personally sells me. But when this movie was shot, she was not even of legal drinking age in the U.S.. That said, I am fairly happy with what we got here. To be real though, it is not my favorite lead performance in a biopic. There is not as much of an oomph factor here to the performance that I have seen from say Austin Butler as Elvis Presley. Some of Abela’s performance feels played up and almost in the realm of fantasy, but there are also a fair share of grounded moments to balance out those exaggerated ones. The performance is not perfect, but there is a lot of good to it.

I also really liked the movie’s attempt to show the chemistry between Winehouse and her love interest, Blake Fielder-Civil, played finely by Jack O’Connell. If anything, I thought the scenes between these two were some of the best parts of the movie and I honestly wouldn’t mind seeing these actors on screen again in another project.

One of the things I will remember most about “Back to Black” is that from start to finish, there was always this consistent tone to the movie, and it seemed to match the tone that comes to mind when I think or talk about Amy Winehouse herself. I do not listen to her music. Frankly, I do not care for her music. Having seen this movie, I do not think I am going to go back and listen to her music. But as I watched the movie, even in its lighter moments, there was always this bittersweet nature to it. If you were to ask me to talk about Amy Winehouse, I will probably say what a lot of other people say and note that her life was taken too soon. We likely missed out on someone who could have built a humungous legacy. Similarly, as I watched this movie, there seems to be this lingering gloom. Granted, there are several moments where that feeling is minute, but it is still there. I must also add the movie’s greyish and bleak color grading, which is practically noticeable in almost every scene, may have an effect on said gloom as well.

When it comes to these musical biopics, I often seek these movies out with my mom. These are some of her gotos. This one is no exception. When she walks out of these films, she often talks about how much she liked hearing the artist’s music as shown in the final product. Knowing the title of this film, we get to hear a good portion of Winehouse’s discography. My favorite of the songs brought to life would be “Rehab.” Again, much of this movie is about not just Amy Winehouse’s rise as an artist, but it also dives into her personal life, and her struggles with drugs and alcohol. This song, not to mention its performance in particular, connects the movie’s ideas together beautifully. The scene in the film is beautifully timed, edited, and as highlighted already, portrayed by Marisa Abela herself.

If I have any real negatives with “Back to Black,” I would say there are parts of the film that are more memorable than others. I would not be able to tell you the name of every character that is in the movie, perhaps some minor details that are in the movie, or every song that is in the movie. Then again, I already mentioned I am not the biggest Amy Winehouse fan. The movie itself, while it is really good, does not have many moments where I am going to look back and label it iconic, or some similar degree that would indicate prestige. As a biopic, this is a decent look into Amy Winehouse’s life with a good amount of tonal consistency. And even though I will say the movie does have an everlasting glimmer of gloom throughout, the gloom never gets to a point where I feel truly heartbroken as a viewer. There are tragic, unfortunate things happening throughout this movie. Sadly, I don’t think I am feeling the melancholy this movie wants me to feel at times. It’s not like when I watched “Priscilla” and was unspeakably riveted by Cailee Spaeny as Priscilla Presley. Here’s an analogy my fellow “Django Unchained” fans would understand, “Back to Black” had my curiosity, but when it comes to keeping my eyes and ears glued, “Priscilla” had my attention, if that makes any sense. “Back to Black” is not going to end up in my top films of the year. If anything, it will wind up somewhere in the middle. But there are plenty of pros to this film that could potentially make a one time watch justified should you decide to check it out.

In the end, “Back to Black” is engaging, but there is not much to it that truly individualizes it. It feels wrong to call a movie like this ordinary, even though you can say it has some familiar beats from other titles of its kind. “Back to Black” has neat production value, good acting, and a fine pace to it that rarely had me disinterested. It’s good, but not great. Now if you are an Amy Winehouse fan, it is hard for me to say whether or not I recommend this film, partially because, again, I do not listen to her music. For the record, going back to Abela’s performance, she does all of her own singing. From a straight up commitment perspective, I admire Abela’s efforts here. As for whether her singing translates well for the average Amy Winehouse fan, that is for them to decide. I must also note that I was 11 when Winehouse died. I was not as in touch with trends, culture, and goings on at the time as I am now. But as a pure movie and story, it gets a thumbs up from me. Not a strong one, but a thumbs up nevertheless. I am going to give “Back to Black” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the new comedy “Summer Camp.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Young Woman and the Sea,” “Inside Out 2,” “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” and “Thelma.” 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 “Back to Black?” What did you think about it? Or, who is someone whose life you feel was taken too soon that you would have like to have seen live longer? For me, Chadwick Boseman. Between his time in the MCU, an Oscar nomination, and his ability to put on killer performances, I would like to see what other projects he would have done had he not passed in August 2020. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

I Saw the TV Glow (2024): A Colorful, Trippy, Unique, Dream-Like Hour and a Half I Would Rather Forget

Posted on by Jack Drees

“I Saw the TV Glow” is written and directed by Jane Schoenbrun (A Self-Induced Hallucination, We’re All Going to the World’s Fair) and stars Justice Smith (Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom), Brigette Lundy-Paine (Atypical, Bill & Ted Face the Music), Helena Howard (The Wilds, Madeline’s Madeline), Lindsey Jordan, Conner O’Malley (Joe Pera Talks with You, I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson), Emma Portner, (Ghostbusters: Afterlife), Ian Foreman (Let the Right One In, Exhibiting Forgiveness), Fred Durst (The Longshots, The Fanatic), and Danielle Deadwyler (Till, The Harder They Fall). This film is about two teenagers who bond over a supernatural television shows that eventually winds up mysteriously canceled.

A24 is one of those names in the film industry that is synonymous with prestige. At least if we are talking the last decade or so in cinema. Even if the film is not the highest in budget, you expect a certain level of quality and artistic merit from each title they distribute. In addition to already having a number of bangers on their hands, their 2022 slate was one of the best I have seen from a distributor. From “X” to “Everything Everywhere All at Once” to “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” to “Pearl,” A24 is one of those companies that is capable of delivering all different kinds of movies with an admirable touch to them in such a short span of time. Now, a couple years later, we are continuing this path of diverse, but nevertheless artistically sound titles. In March, we had “Civil War,” the company’s most expensive film to date. While I was not able to appreciate everything the movie had to offer, I liked the film’s scale and ability to immerse me into just about every scene. I have not seen all of A24’s films this year. I want to check out “Problemista” at some point, but I missed it when it came out, so I will wait on that one. Until then, let’s talk about one I did see, “I Saw the TV Glow.”

The best thing I can say about “I Saw the TV Glow” is that much of the film delivers a colorfully intriguing aesthetic. The best word I can use to describe this film is moody. I found myself transfixed with each frame just wanting to jump inside. The entire film delivers on vibes. It comes off as this fantasy you can somehow place in our own world. I guess you can say the film plays out like a dream. Sure, a lot of it feels like something that could happen in real life. But as I have noticed myself in dreams, there are certain aspects that are much like the reality in which I find myself each and everyday, but there may be some minor change that separates my dream state from that of which I experience in the real world. If you were to tell me that Jane Schoenbrun kept a dream journal and based some of this film off of that, I would buy your claim.

But much like some dreams, the film is kind of forgettable. And you know that saying that horror movies can give you bad dreams? I cannot say this movie has ruined my sleep patterns, but it does not change the fact that “I Saw the TV Glow” does occasionally come off as nightmare fuel. Not in the way I would have hoped…

This is especially noticeable by the end. I am not going to go too deep into the ending because I want to keep spoilers to a minimum, but by the end of this movie, I felt similar, in A24 speak, to how I felt watching “Midsommar.” The film had a clear goal to haunt me, and I just ended up more annoyed with what was happening than anything else. Was this film’s climax perhaps more eerie than the one in “Midsommar?” Perhaps. But much like “Midsommar,” “I Saw the TV Glow” ended in such a way that was less than satisfying. I left the film either wanting more or something different than what I got.

In fact, by the end, the film basically takes one noticeable downward spiral for me. I start the movie intrigued with the plot, intrigued with the characters, and of the course, the aesthetic. That last aspect is the one constant saving this movie for me. “I Saw the TV Glow” feels like two different movies. In one hand, it is a story about a man growing and his bonds with other people all the while finding himself fascinated with a TV series. On the other hand, it is a boring horror show that offers few chills. And of the chills that are offered, they do not have much of a kick to them.

If there are any other notable positives about this movie, it is that it does somewhat remind me about our connection to our favorite media. In this case, we see our main characters bonding over a late-night TV series aimed at somewhat younger audiences, perhaps young adults or teenagers. It also shows how when we grow older, our opinions of that media can evolve as our tastes mature.

This happened to me with “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.” When I watched it in my youth, I liked the action. I liked the adventure. I liked the effects. I liked the sound. I liked a lot of what it had to offer. But as I grew older, the film fell apart for me when I judged it as a story. When I was younger, I was not able to see certain things I watched in a negative light like I do today. When I first watched “Attack of the Clones,” I was not able to determine what a “good” or “bad” movie was. It was something to kill time, and I thought it was a solid time-killer. Then I grew up.

The film shows how sometimes people be blinded by nostalgia, or as it also may suggest, friendship. Maybe we have something we grew up with and have fond memories over that we like for reasons having to do more than that thing’s existence by itself. We see this movie’s established TV show, “The Pink Opaque” as something that connects our characters to a certain degree. At the beginning of the film, we someone reading a guide about “The Pink Opaque.” After our main character talks with the person with said guide, the movie leads itself down a path where they become companions and that show is a commonality between them.

Does Justice Smith do a good job in the lead role? Yes. Does Jane Schoenbrun direct the heck out of this movie? I would say so. In fact, one of the biggest positives is that this movie, at times, comes off as something only she can do. Does this movie take big risks? Of course it does. But unfortunately, unlike some big risks, the ones on display here do not pay off in big rewards. Part of me is glad, per se, that I checked out this movie. But it does not indicate that I had a good time with it. Maybe I just have a slight fascination with torturing myself.

In the end, “I Saw the TV Glow” is like a lot of A24 movies. Unfortunately, unlike a number of them, this one is not that great. But much like just about every one I have seen, it was able to bring out such an enormous reaction out of me. Even though I was not satisfied by the climax, I can say I lowered my jaw a bit as it was happening. The movie reminded me a bit of my obsession with some movies or TV shows I have watched over the years and how in some ways they became a large part of my life. And I have to say of the movies I have seen this year, “I Saw the TV Glow” may have delivered my favorite color palette of them all. That said, in a thumbs up, thumbs down world, this is a thumbs down. I am going to give “I Saw the TV Glow” a 5/10.

“I Saw the TV Glow” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Back to Black,” the brand new movie starring Marisa Abela as Amy Winehouse. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Summer Camp,” “Young Woman and the Sea,” “Inside Out 2,” “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” and “Thelma.” 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 watch “I Saw the TV Glow?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a TV show that at one point in your life, or even right now, that you consider to be a personal obsession? For me, my biggest TV show obsession is, and probably always will be, the TBS reality competition “King of the Nerds.” Not only was it a killer hour of cool concepts, likable contestants, and a celebration of geek culture, but it helped my find some of my best friends. Let me know your obsessions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Fall Guy (2024): David Leitch’s Love Letter to Stuntwork

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Fall Guy” is directed by David Leitch (Bullet Train, Deadpool 2) and stars Ryan Gosling (Barbie, La La Land), Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer, Edge of Tomorrow), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Bullet Train), Hannah Waddingham (Ted Lasso, Sex Education), Teresa Palmer (The Choice, Point Break), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), and Winston Duke (Us, Black Panther). This film is inspired by a 1980s TV series of the same name and centers around a Hollywood stuntman named Colt Seavers who is tasked with finding the missing star of a film directed by his ex.

July 21st, 2023 to me will forever be known as one of the biggest days in the history of moviegoing. You have two high profile films opening on the same day, “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” both of which have high anticipation and dedicated audiences. Both films ended up making tons of money overtime with “Barbie” becoming the biggest film of the year and “Oppenheimer” earning more at the box office than any other biographical film in history. Now, less than a year later, a couple of the stars from those competing movies join forces for “The Fall Guy,” a project I was curious about for some time. You have “Barbie’s” Ryan Gosling, who I’d argue gave the best supporting performance of the past year. And you have “Oppenheimer’s” Emily Blunt, who also stood out in her role.

This leads to my first positive of the film. Gosling and Blunt’s characters, Colt and Jody, are a match made in Heaven. And I am not necessarily talking about their attachment to each other, or much they like each other, or how good they look together.

Although to be real, they do look pretty freaking good together…

In fact, the movie makes it clear that these two are not always on the best terms. But what I mean is that these two, even in moments where they clearly are not supposed to align with each other, have undeniable chemistry. Honestly, it is some of the best chemistry I have seen in a big budget movie in a while. I am not going to pretend that either one of these actors are giving performances equal to their “Barbenheimer” outings, but when it comes to “The Fall Guy,” these two deliver stellar portrayals of their respective characters, and when they are on screen together, it is simply put, magical.

There are a lot of stories out there in the realm of movies where the people behind the projects are expressing their passion for the craft. Steven Spielberg’s “The Fabelmans” does a good job at tributing filmmakers trying to get into the industry. Damien Chazelle’s “La La Land” is a salute to the dreams of stars, including hopeful actors. I even thought Kevin Smith’s “Clerks III” was a great encapsulation of what it is like to make a passion project. What it is like to be an auteur. What it is like to take on such a monumental effort of a film without realizing what it is you’re getting into. Similarly, “The Fall Guy” is clearly a love letter to stuntwork. The movie itself is about a stuntman, has tons of stunts in it, and it is directed by someone who has a history of overseeing stunts in film. David Leitch has helmed some of the biggest action movies in recent years like “Deadpool 2” and “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.” Before that, he was responsible for stunts in “The Matrix Reloaded,” “Underworld: Evolution,” “300,” “Tron: Legacy,” and “Jupiter Ascending.” On paper, if anybody was qualified to direct “The Fall Guy,” it would be David Leitch. In execution, the results are fantastic.

“The Fall Guy” is packed with one thrilling action sequence after another. Whether it is a simple moment where you have characters on foot, a high speed chase through the city, or a so-called fight in an apartment, everything in this movie had me glued to the screen. Even the moments where we just watch Colt Seavers doing his job is engaging as heck. One of the best scenes of the movie is where we see his character repeatedly set on fire. Not only does it showcase the dangers of his job, but again, this movie is a love letter to stunts, and it also showcases what the people making our movies go through for our entertainment. This movie showcases that in a way that is informative while also doubling as a standout scene.

One thing I always noticed in David Leitch’s movies is that at some point, there will be at least one big A-List celebrity cameo. In “Hobbs & Shaw,” the movie seamlessly finds a way to have Kevin Hart and Ryan Reynolds pop up for a scene. During my initial watch of “Bullet Train,” I found myself delightfully shocked to see the latter of those two actors appear in that film for a hot second. Without giving much away, the last moments of “The Fall Guy” has a cameo from a celebrity that I am sure many of you reading this would probably know. As far as cameos go, it is probably one of my favorites in recent years. I burst into pure laughter when this person showed up. Regarding who that person is, I will just let you find out for yourself.

“The Fall Guy” is one of those movies that is clearly going after a wide audience. If it sticks the landing, that is of course, a big fat win. And thankfully, it does. Perhaps the biggest compliment I can give “The Fall Guy” is that the movie presented itself in such a way to the point where my mom ended up going to the theater to check it out. Turns out, she had a great time. She is not an action movie person. But I must say that if you do not like action movies and are hesitating on checking this film out, I would hold those hesitations at the door and give the movie a shot anyway. Because this film is more than just action. It also does well in the humor department. I found myself laughing quite a bit. I also would say the film works well as a romance story. It does not feel overly cheesy, and as mentioned, I like the two leads enough to the point where I would not mind seeing them together in a relationship. With “The Fall Guy” going after a multitude of demographics, perhaps even the “Swiftie” crowd at one point, it is arguable that there is some noticeable potential for disappointment because of how many things the movie tries to shove in a single package. But somehow, everything flows naturally.

“The Fall Guy” is probably not going to win any Oscars. Not only because there is no such thing as a Best Stunts category. By the way, I was not surprised that the movie found a way to note this fact in the script. But on top of that, I would imagine “The Fall Guy” is not the kind of movie the Academy would hail as one of the year’s best. It could pick up a technical nomination or two. But I doubt it is going to get much more than that. But this is the kind of movie that I think is best watched with a group of people. The film is now available to stream at home, so you could gather some friends and watch it at your place. But if you want my recommendation, if “The Fall Guy” is playing in a theater near you, go see it there. The action is worth seeing on the big screen. The sound is incredible. And it is undoubtedly an immersive experience. Nothing beats watching Ryan Gosling speed through the city in a car with a dog who only understands commands in French. And it is even better on the big screen.

In the end, “The Fall Guy” is a rare flick that has something for everyone, and also one where those somethings exceed the bare minimum. “The Fall Guy” is a movie that I would honestly recommend to just about anyone looking for something to watch because if you are not an action junkie, I think this is nevertheless a fairly accessible title. It’s got comedy. It’s got romance. It’s got drama. It’s got all you can want in a movie. As far as mainstream titles go, this should have done a lot better at the box office than it did. Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt are excellent in the film. As for other standouts in the cast, I really enjoyed Hannah Waddingham as Gail, a producer on Jody’s film. If you do watch “The Fall Guy,” please stick around for the credits. There are some cool behind the scenes moments you might not want to miss. I am going to give “The Fall Guy” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Coming soon, I will have reviews for “Tarot,” “IF,” “The Garfield Movie,” “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” and “Summer Camp.” 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 Fall Guy?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could take one star from “Barbie” and one star from “Oppenheimer” and put them in a movie together? Which ones would you want and what would the movie be about? For me, I’d love to see Simu Liu and Florence Pugh do a movie together where they play love interests. I think they’d have good chemistry. Let me know your selections down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

Admit it…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Fall Guy.” I had a great time with the film and I cannot wait to share my thoughts with you guys! Also coming soon, I have reviews on the way for “Tarot,” “IF,” “The Garfield Movie,” and “I Saw the TV Glow.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Challengers?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite tennis movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Monkey Man (2024): Not Quite Bananas Enough for This Guy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Monkey Man” is directed by Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel) who also stars in the film as Kid. The film’s cast also features Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Maleficent), Pitobash (I Am Kalam, Shor in the City), Vipin Sharma (Taare Zameen Par, Paatal Lok), Sikander Kher (Woodstock Villa, Players), Adithi Kalkunte (Mumbai Diaries, Hotel Mumbai), Sobhita Dhulipala (Made in Heaven, The Night Manger), Ashwini Kalsekar (Jodha Akbar, Kasamh Se), Makarand Deshpande (Dandupalya, Hanan), Jatin Malik, and Zakir Hussain (Heat and Dust, Saaz). This film is about a man who tries to achieve revenge against corrupt leaders who killed his mother and continue to victimize people beneath them.

I first heard about “Monkey Man” just a couple months before its release. What made me really excited for this film is the people behind it. I cannot pretend I know every single name attached to this film, including the incredibly stacked cast I just mentioned in the beginning. But I have a soft spot for Dev Patel as a performer. One of my favorite films of the late 2000s is “Slumdog Millionaire,” where he plays the gripping lead role of Jamal. I believed every second of his performance. I think he is a remarkable talent. Behind the scenes, I did not know what to expect, but I know Patel has plenty of experience in the industry in general, so maybe that could translate to a solid directorial effort with this movie. Prior to releasing this film, he directed two shorts, neither of which I have seen, making “Monkey Man” his feature-length debut. We all have to start somewhere, so maybe I could trust Patel.

That said, I know one guy who probably does trust Patel, and that is none other than “Get Out” director Jordan Peele. The film was originally slated to release on Netflix. But with Peele’s motivation to promote the film and put it under his Monkeypaw Productions label, the film ended up going to theaters. Was the switch worth it? Judging by this movie’s wild action scenes, admirable setpieces, and compelling drama, I would say to some degree you could say it was. But I also feel like there is something missing.

I am not going to lie, this movie bored me in the first half. It took me forever to become totally engaged with what I was watching, which sucks because I like Dev Patel as the lead role and he is clearly pouring his heart and soul into this project. Said heart and soul is most certainly shown in the film’s latter half, which I found more exciting. This movie does have some hypnotizing fight scenes. There is one action sequence in a kitchen that is just as riveting as the trailer promised. And it is held together beautifully by Patel’s sensation of a lead performance. I have not seen all of his work, but this makes me want to go back and watch more of it. His portrayal of Kid very much delivers an attractive roughness to it that feels akin to listening to a hard rock or heavy metal song.

I am not going to pretend every action scene was a standout, but in terms of immersion, the movie sometimes does a good job at putting you in the middle of everything. And I say that despite this movie’s use of shaky cam, which I can find to be a bit of a gimmick. When it comes to my action movies, I will usually prefer them to have more still shots like in “John Wick,” but this movie’s use of shaky was honestly not the worst I have seen. Again, going back to the scene in the kitchen, I honestly felt like I was watching something out of “Tenet,” but with a different kind of intensity. I was waiting for Dev Patel to say “I ordered my hot sauce an hour ago.”

“Monkey Man” is one of the harder movies I had to judge. Partially because I am not of the majority when it comes to my opinion. Both the critic and audience scores are sitting in the 80s on Rotten Tomatoes as of writing this. I am not saying the movie is outright horrible, but the best phrase that I can use to describe this movie is that it is “beautifully forgettable.” The camerawork is not perfect, but a lot of the scenery pops. The shot of Dev Patel inside the open elevator is going to continue to be ingrained in my memory for some time. The color grading is splendidly rugged. The action definitely has its moments. Every actor comes off as if they are giving a hundred and ten percent. Dev Patel is clearly firing on all cylinders in front of and behind the camera. Having seen his efforts here, I hope he continues directing. I also hope he continues writing. Is this the best start for Patel? I would not say that. But his style and approach to filmmaking is one I would like to continue to explore should he decide to helm another project in the future.

In a world of sequels, reboots, and remakes, it is nice to see movies like this where people have a singular vision. Granted, I am not denying there are lots of original movies being made. But even with that in mind, it is cool to see something like this on the big screen. Even if there are familiar elements or beats that I recognize from other movies, the way some of those elements are handled here feel unique to some degree.

While this movie has its differences from “John Wick,” most notably the way action scenes are shot, there are some similarities to point out as well. Both films are quite violent. This movie takes it up to an 11 sometimes. But one of the problems I have with “John Wick” is that sometimes the plot takes a bit of a backseat. I feel the same can be said for “Monkey Man,” which has a good idea for a story, and there are parts of it I liked. At the same time, if that first half were just slightly more interesting, maybe this movie would earn a better score. I did not find myself clicking with every character or situation in the way I wanted to. When I look at “Monkey Man,” I seem to carry a deeper fascination with the lore as opposed to the story itself if that makes any sense. But for me, I am probably looking for a little bit more to satisfy my appetite than what I got here.

In the end, “Monkey Man” is not a movie I would watch a second time. It is not even one I particularly would give a thumbs up to. But weirdly enough, I am glad I saw it simply because I think Dev Patel has potential as a feature film director. There are parts of this movie that work. If you are looking for good action scenes and that is all you want, then maybe this would be a movie for you. But for whatever reason, it was not for me. My one hope is that if Dev Patel has a writing credit next time around, which in this case he shares with a couple other people, it is for a script that is more engaging than what we got here. That said, having seen this movie, I can say that if I read some of these ideas on paper, I would be sold in an instant. But I think when it comes to bringing those ideas to the screen, that is a different story. Maybe I would watch it again as background noise. Maybe I’ll look up one of the action scenes on YouTube. But I cannot say I am going to actively seek this movie to watch on a Friday night when I have nothing else to do. I am going to give “Monkey Man” a 5/10.

“Monkey Man” is now playing in theaters. It is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror movie “Abigail.” I have been DYING to talk about this flick for a long time. I saw it last month, and could not stop thinking about it since. Look forward to my thoughts coming soon. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Monkey Man?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Dev Patel performance? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Madame Web (2024): The Writers of Morbius Return to Bring the Worst Movie Since Morbius

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Madame Web” is directed by S.J. Clarkson (The Defenders, Jessica Jones) and stars Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, The High Note), Sydney Sweeney (Anyone But You, Euphoria), Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold), Celeste O’Connor (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Selah and the Spades), Tahar Rahim (The Serpent, The Mauritanian), Mike Epps (The Hangover, Next Friday), Emma Roberts (Nerve, Scream Queens), and Adam Scott (Parks and Recreation, Big Little Lies). This film centers around a woman named Cassandra Webb. When this paramedic discovers she is clairvoyant, she tries to balance learning about her past all the while protecting the future of three teenage girls.

In the moviegoing market, comic book movies are a dime a dozen nowadays. But there are reasons for that. For starters, a lot of them have received positive reviews in recent years. DC titles like “Joker,” “The Suicide Squad,” and “Wonder Woman” have received a lot of love over the years. In the case of the first title, it even got some recognition at the Academy Awards. The MCU has had a lot of positive critical reception and have been darlings with fans and audiences. On Sony’s side, the animated “Spider-Verse” titles have tons of dedicated fans. But let’s not forget the real reason why these films keep getting made. It’s the same reason every film gets made. Profit.

Films like “Iron Man 3,” “Aquaman,” and “Captain Marvel” for example, all made more than a billion dollars. Naturally, Sony wants a piece of that pie as well. And it’s not like they’re a stranger to it. Their collaborations with Marvel Studios, “Spider-Man: Far from Home” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” both joined the billion dollar club. At the time, 2002’s “Spider-Man” became the fastest movie to ever reach $100 million at the box office. But in recent years, the studio has moved over to making films about Spider-Man characters without the use of the webhead as its primary protagonist. “Venom,” despite how much I think it is hot garbage, made more than $856 million. “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” even though it came out when the COVID-19 pandemic kept some audiences at home, still managed to pass the $500 million mark. Then came “Morbius…” With the film grossing $167.5 million against a reported $75 million budget, it barely reached a point of breaking even.

And some may ask why these films seem to be making less than some of their competitors. While there are other factors that definitely come into play, I can shed light on one of them. These films are just not as memorable or high quality compared to say a lot of the MCU installments we have gotten over the years.

If you all remember my review for “Morbius,” I railed that movie into the ground. I wondered why Sony decided to get the writers of “Gods of Egypt,” Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, to pen the picture. Maybe they are nice people. Maybe they save kittens from trees on a regular basis, I have no idea, but it does not change the fact these two are some of the worst writers in Hollywood. I was especially shocked that Sony saw “Morbius” and thought, “You know who we should get to write our next comic book film?” The guys who gave us that schlocky Jared Leto film we pushed back for a couple years! As for the one trailer released in this film’s lackluster marketing campaign, it honestly did not help things. But of course, there have been plenty of uninteresting trailers to good movies. But what did I think of the movie itself? Well, to answer this question, I am just gonna have to ask anyone who is reading this to strap themselves in. Because this movie is getting the angry, tangent-filled review it deserves. Why? Because this movie is one of the worst I have ever seen in my entire life. I am not exaggerating. I am not being hyperbolic. This may be the worst film of the decade. Period. End of sentence. Done. Finito. The rain has taken the spider out.

This film is the first I have seen where they flashed the Columbia Pictures 100 years logo. I guess it only took a century to make something as truly diabolical and asinine as whatever this ridiculousness happens to be. I do not know how they did it. But somehow, Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless wrote a film that is worse than “Morbius.” Get ready guys, I am about to do something I hoped I would not have to do, use “Morbius” as THE POSITIVE.

While “Morbius” was not great, the film at least started with a hint of promise. Looking back, the film had an okay, not great, but mildly amusing first act that did an alright job at establishing a key relationship in the film. You got to know Michael. You got to know Milo. It actually helps the film somewhat as it shoddily progresses. In “Madame Web,” I was about to break just from scene one.

As far as big budget movies go, this is one of the most headache-inducing I have watched. This may seem like a small thing, but there are a couple moments in the film that had these unnecessary zooms. It felt like the cameraman was trying out a camera for the first time and attempting to figure out how the zoom works! It’s that bad! Of course, the cringeworthy dialogue from the beginning did not help much either. And if you like cringeworthy dialogue, fasten your seatbelts, because you are in for a treat! This movie has it in spades! Disappointingly, “He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died,” is not one of those lines. Yep, that infamously awful line from the trailer, it’s not in the movie. As for the other straight up abysmal utterances of words and phrases that did make it into the final project, they are not much better.

What makes “Madame Web” inferior to “Morbius?” Well, looking back at “Morbius,” I think Jared Leto did a great job staying in character the entire time and Matt Smith had the energy of a lively game show host with an edge. As much as I hate bashing actors nowadays, there is not one performance in the film to write home about.

With the exception of one scene past the film’s halfway mark, I cannot say Dakota Johnson gave her best work in this film. To be fair though, going back to the irritatingly terrible screenplay, it did not help things. The one moment Johnson shines in the film just so happens to be the one halfway decent moment in the screenplay. It is one where we get to have a nice, charming moment between her and another character. It is perhaps the only moment of the movie where any of the characters unleash authentic emotion. It was the one moment of the movie where I didn’t hate myself. Then we get to the next scene, and I am not kidding, where it only took a few lines for me to slap myself in the face like I was the first guy trying to figure out how to cure amnesia.

Dakota Johnson may play the protagonist of the film and had top billing. Given what she had to venture through, I’d argue she was underpaid. Right below her is Sydney Sweeney. In the time it took me to write this review, I think significantly more teenage boys took the time to buy posters of Sweeney to put on their bedroom walls than they did to secure “Madame Web” tickets. Knowing the inexcusably bad execution of her character on the page, I think those teenagers made some comparably reasonable purchases. For one thing, from a casting perspective, I find it hilarious that they ended up casting Sydney Sweeney to play a shy, reserved teenage girl. It might be the funniest casting since getting John Cena to play Vin Diesel’s brother in “F9: The Fast Saga.” Now I have seen twenty-something year old actors play teens decently before, and I have seen suave, confidence-exuding actors play roles that do not quite match those aspects of their real life persona. The profession is called acting for a reason. Look at Ana de Armas in “Knives Out!” She is perhaps one of the most beautiful actresses in the business today, but I don’t think you would get that impression of Ana de Armas if your first watch of her in a movie happened to be “Knives Out.” The best thing I can say about Sydney Sweeney in “Madame Web” is the same thing I can say for Jared Leto in “Morbius.” She did her best with the excruciatingly dull material given to her.

In comic book movie speak, the placement between Sydney Sweeney, the other teenage girls, and Dakota Johnson reminds me of the 2015 “Fantastic 4” reboot. An uninteresting, poorly contrived group of four people that is randomly placed together with no semblance of personality or likability. But you know what? I was able to find more positives in “Fantastic 4” than I did for “Madame Web.” The visual effects look nice, some of the first act was okay, and I think Miles Teller did a good job in the lead role. Meanwhile, “Madame Web” pales visually minus a few creative moments, I rolled my eyes from scene one, and I could not find a good performance even if you put a hypnotist in front of me to convince me that one was in front of me all along.

Speaking of “Fantastic 4,” this film, not to mention their respective distributors, have something in common. They come from similar obligations. Rights maintenance. It’s not show friends, it’s show business. Sony is obligated to commence production on a “Spider-Man” project every five years and nine months. They do not have to release the film, they just have to say that it is in production. After seeing “Madame Web,” I can say to those complaining that studios are not making enough original movies, Sony probably feels your pain. They likely felt that they did not want to make this film and instead, they had to. But you know what they could have done? I don’t know, cancelled it?! Go all David Zaslav on it and scrap it for a tax write-off?! That’s what they could have done! For those who say “Batgirl” should never have been cancelled, I think “Madame Web” may prove why that movie met its fate. After all, “Madame Web” is not making all the money in the world. You know why it is not making all the money in the world? It’s unwatchable! Simple as that!

As a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which this movie does not connect to, I recognize that the entirety of that timeline is not based on the vision of one director, or writer. A lot of it traces back to Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios. As much as I am not one for what many would call studio interference, I will not deny that a lot of the success of the MCU is owed to Feige and his ability to balance connectivity from one project to the next. Not everything is a hit. There have been duds like “Thor: The Dark World,” but everything makes sense and at least feels like it is coming from some hint of passion. Feige cares about what goes on the screen. The filmmakers care about what goes on the screen. I am not saying this film’s director, S.J. Clarkson does not care. But as a whole, this movie feels like made by people who could care less about how it would turn out. Despite how much money these movies make and their extreme presence in popular culture, the MCU movies feel like they are made with love. At least they are when standing next to “Madame Web,” which feels like it was made to fit into a release schedule.

Speaking of release dates, I love how this movie was released on Valentine’s Day. I have never been in a relationship myself, but I nevertheless feel like I am in a fair position to give some advice. If you took your partner to see “Madame Web” on Valentine’s Day, they have every right to use that as a reason to block your phone number, ghost you, or break up with you. I don’t make the rules. I just tell things as they are.

Seriously! Who in their right mind saw “Morbius” and thought the writers should continue working in this cinematic universe? The fact that they were able to conjure a script that is inferior to their previous project is baffling to me.

And if you think I got into the movie’s most shameful moments yet, just wait. You have seen nothing yet. If you have been following this blog for the past five or six years, chances are you may remember my thoughts on “Uncle Drew.” But for those who need catching up, I have to say the movie was not funny, not charming, and completely lacking in any likability whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, “Uncle Drew” has only given me two things. One of the most passionate reviews I have done on this platform, and ire. Not much else. In that review, I titled it the “worst Pepsi commercial ever.” That highly talked about ad with Kendall Jenner has nothing on just how bad that movie was. It was filled to the brim with Pepsi product placement to the point where I almost wanted to chuck a couple Coca-Colas directly at the screen.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think “Madame Web” is now a fine contender to be the worst Pepsi commercial in history.

I am almost scared to know what went on behind the scenes of “Madame Web,” but at the same time, I am curious to know how much money Pepsi shelled out just have the exposure they’ve gotten in this film. Sony films in general are usually obnoxious enough for how much they advertise their own products. Just look at “Gran Turismo!” Not only is that based on a PlayStation exclusive video game, but it also doubles as a Nissan commercial, and ends up making the Walkman an essential element to the story. When it comes to product placement, Sony is arguably the most shameless major studio when it comes to this heinous trend. I understand, movies are expensive and studios need to pay the bills. But why does Pepsi need to be thrown in my face so obnoxiously? At this point, this is not a movie. It’s a giant, uninspired, bloody two hour ad! The real protagonist of this film is not Cassandra Webb, it’s Pepsi!

Speaking of lazy, the ending of this film downright sucks on so many levels. For starters, it reuses footage from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2.” Not only did it feel like a quick copout, but it made me wish I was watching a much better movie! As for other reasons why the ending sucks, I must once again go back to my old friend “Morbius.”

I said one of the reasons that film did not work for me was because it lied in its marketing campaign about certain things. Unfortunately, Sony learned nothing when marketing “Madame Web.” Because there is an entire segment of the trailer dedicated to showing off something regarding the teenage girls. Now, as mentioned, the teenage girls are in the movie. And that “something” I just mentioned is in the final picture. Unfortunately though, that something is used to basically tease a certain thing in the future. Perhaps a “Madame Web 2.” To that I must say, if you cannot give me a cool movie the first time, why should I care about what you are going to give me the second time? The ending of this movie basically just tells me that after being trapped in front of a screen for two hours, it wants me to come back for an occasion where we actually see something potentially worthwhile. One of the flaws of cinematic universes or modern film franchises in general is that everybody is so concerned about building excitement in regards to what’s next to the point where it is easy to forget that you have to focus on the feature that is in front of you. Additionally, we get a costume reveal for our title character and I have to say, it is strange to look at. Maybe it is because so much of this movie looks dark and greyish at times. Compared to a lot of other comic book movies, the color palette looks bleak. If these Sony Marvel movies have one thing in common, it’s that they look dark and depressing. It sometimes turns me off. I get that characters like Venom are often seen as villains, but still.

Honestly though, the movie is sometimes hilarious, but not in a good way. There is an entire subplot dedicated to the birth of a certain character whose name is never mentioned. As a “Spider-Man” fan, I am able to put the pieces together and determine who this character is, but the way this movie goes about this feels insulting and lazy. The subplot also brings out one of the most cringeworthy jokes in the movie. Basically, Emma Roberts’s character reveals her water just broke, to which one of the teenage girls ends up shouting, “Ewwwwwwww!” I am not joking, to say I facepalmed in that moment would be an understatement. If you were in my auditorium and you heard a loud slapping sound out of nowhere, that was me slapping my hand on my face in anger.

And yes, for those who ask, that was the scene that followed the one decent moment in the movie.

From a technical perspective, “Madame Web” has some okay moments in terms of the action sequences, but nothing I will worship until the day I die. In fact, once again, there is one action sequence that further emphasizes my displeasure with Pepsi’s overexposure throughout this turd of a film. I think the weakest part of the film from a technical standpoint is the sound. Now, everything’s clear. I could hear all the dialogue, in its everlasting, infinite, sigh-inducing glory… But there are multiple parts of the film where I thought I was getting brain damage from how loud the movie was. I watched the film in IMAX, which would naturally mean the sound would be louder. But I have been to numerous IMAX experiences and have witnessed plenty where louder sound has only served as a benefit. Take “Oppenheimer” for example. That trinity test scene was bonkers in IMAX. It was something else. It was one of the most riveting things I witnessed in my entire life simply because I felt like I was a part of that scene. Sometimes “Madame Web” was just loud enough to the point where my headache must have gotten irritated by what was in front of it. Speaking of headaches, the way this movie goes about explaining our main protagonist’s powers sometimes got on my nerves. It’s not that I did not understand it, but rather that it was showcased in such a way that messed with my mind the longer it lasted on the screen.

“Madame Web” is an hour and 56 minutes long. Honestly, that runtime is incredibly flawed. According to my calculations, I think I found the perfect runtime for the film. And that runtime is nothing because a film like this should have never been released. The fact that it even got made is mind-blowing. When this film started, I was turned off. As it progressed, I was seething. When the credits showed up, I stormed out of the theater like a young child who got blue shelled by their friend twice in one race during a session of “Mario Kart!”

I wish I were exaggerating. You may think I am simply telling you this for dramatic effect. It’s true. But I assure you, that short paragraph I just wrote, has more substance than “Madame Web” can provide in less than two hours.

In the end, to call “Madame Web” a joke would make sense, but to do that would be insult against comedy. Because comedy makes you laugh. The only thing “Madame Web” did was intensify my anger. I love comic book movies. I know they are not exactly in the best state right now, but I remember walking out of every MCU movie that came out last year. And even if they were not fantastic, they at least had some redeeming qualities. I know a lot of people have been recently bagging on “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and “The Marvels,” but I dare you to watch those two movies and “Madame Web” in a marathon and tell me that “Madame Web” is not the worst of those three. Because those two movies, despite their flaws, manage to pack in some fun. They deliver good action, neat effects for the most part, and have likable protagonists at the forefront. When I say that “Madame Web” is the worst film of the decade, it is hard to imagine such an assessment being a stretch. Between a wasted superhero story where we barely get any superhero DNA throughout, a lackluster villain, bad writing, terrible jokes, obscene dialogue, and tired homages to “Spider-Man” lore, “Madame Web” is an utterly atrocious mess that will go down in history as one of the most asinine, sloppy, downright criminal pieces of cinema that has ever disgraced the silver screen. Martin Scorsese, if you are reading this, I may disagree with you on comic book movies in regards to whether or not they are cinema. But after seeing “Madame Web,” I think it would be wrong to even call it a theme park ride. Why? …Because theme park rides are fun. I am going to give “Madame Web” a 1/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Drive-Away Dolls!” Hopefully that will serve as a palette cleanser for the fiendish brain cell-eradicator of a movie I just watched. One can only hope. Also coming soon, I will have my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” and “Kung Fu Panda 4.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Madame Web,” and why did you think it was terrible? Err, sorry! My mind nearly broke for a second, what I meant was, what did you think of the movie? Or, what is the superior project? “Madame Web” or “Morbius?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!