Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! You know that feeling when you were going Black Friday shopping in the 1990s or the 2000s? You found a parking spot at Walmart, and you were trying your best to get your hands on that new TV and would push hundreds of people out of the way just to get your hands on it? Imagine that, but online, and with movie tickets. “The Odyssey” is about to do something that as far as I know, no movie in history has done before. Not even a “Star Wars” or Marvel title.
Tickets are going on sale for “The Odyssey” a full year before its scheduled release. If I had to be honest though, part of me is not surprised this is happening. The film, which comes out July 2026, is expected to be one of the biggest of that year and unleash a first in cinematic history.
If you look on several ticketing sites right now, you will notice that there are times available for Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” a year in advance. This kind of push rarely, if ever, happens for films. If the tickets are not sold out by the time you are reading this, they are likely ready to buy. This post is being published on July 16th, 2025, one day before these tickets officially drop. That said, if you are reading this hours after publication, check Fandango. Check AMC. Tickets are available!
There are a few caveats however… The showtime options are limited, and the tickets are only available at select locations. “The Odyssey” is expected to have a wide release, but if you are looking for times in cities like Boston, which is where I live for example, be patient. Also, these are for IMAX 70mm screenings. If you want to see the film in a standard theater or another format such as Dolby Cinema or IMAX digital, you will have to wait a bit longer. But if you are eager to see the film early the way it was intended, now may be a good time to buy your tickets.
Based on Homer’s epic poem of the same name, “The Odyssey” centers around the character of Odysseus as he ventures home following the end of the Trojan War. The film features an all star cast including Matt Damon, Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jon Bernthal, Robert Pattinson, Lupita Nyong’o, Charlize Theron and Anne Hathaway. That is just scratching the surface! Christopher Nolan is writing and directing the film, as well as producing it alongside his wife Emma Thomas. You might think with an all star cast and an Oscar-winning filmmaker who is hot off of “Oppenheimer” these reasons would be enough to sell tickets early. But perhaps the biggest selling point for me is the opportunity to see the film in IMAX 70mm.
Those who know Christopher Nolan are well aware that he champions the IMAX format, most especially IMAX 70mm, the company’s original film format that has decreased in use throughout the current century with the rise of digital filmmaking and projection. But in recent years, it has regained popularity following the releases of certain movies. Christopher Nolan’s most recent film, “Oppenheimer,” released in a list of theaters playing it in IMAX 70mm. The presentation allows the IMAX-shot scenes to cover the entire screen in a resolution that is theoretically as high as 18K. That movie was Nolan’s latest effort where he would combine traditional 35mm or 70mm film with IMAX film while shooting. But “The Odyssey,” which is also showing in IMAX 70mm, is a different story.
“The Odyssey” has many distinctions of being a cinematic event, including the fact that this is the first Hollywood feature to be shot entirely on IMAX film cameras. This is a feat that yours truly thought might never see the light of day. IMAX film cameras are traditionally known for being loud and bulky, Despite their magnificent results through the lens, they are not always the most realistic camera to use. One reason why “Dunkirk” in particular has so much IMAX-shot footage is due to the film having minimal dialogue.
Dropping the tickets this far in advance is not just a great way to get people talking and push this film’s marketing campaign into gear, but it is essentially an invitation to be a part of history. People who buy tickets for these shows on opening weekend not only get to see the movie, but they earn the right to say that they are the first people to see a Hollywood film shot entirely on IMAX film. Seeing any movie on IMAX film is worth bragging about, especially today when much of the moviegoing market is digital. I had the opportunity, by complete coincidence, to see Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners” on IMAX film a week into its release while it was playing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Like some of Christopher Nolan’s previous movies, “Sinners” combines multiple film formats. But “The Odyssey” is a different animal. Whereas with the “Sinners” IMAX experience, where that movie will switch between black bars and full screen, “The Odyssey” will show the entire movie with the picture covering the screen from top to bottom.
Do any extra perks come with these tickets? Other than bragging rights, it does not look like that will be the case. At least for now. That said, it would be cool to include something special for the attendees whether it means a Q&A, getting to meet one of the film’s stars, or maybe an exclusive t-shirt or popcorn bucket. Just spitballing ideas.
Thankfully, if these theaters are too far for you, IMAX film has a digital equivalent capable of showcasing the IMAX-shot scenes in all their glory through their 4K laser projection system. The projector is available at a short list of IMAX’s “true” theaters, and definitely worth seeking out if you cannot watch the movie on film. That said, tickets are not on sale for any of those locations. But it is nice to have options closer to the film’s release.
As of writing this, a part of me is planning to buy a ticket for one of these screenings, perhaps at the AMC Lincoln Square 13 in New York City since as of now, it appears to be the closest theater to me with showtimes. If you know me, I am such an avid Christopher Nolan and IMAX fanatic that being one of the first to see this film in IMAX 70mm would be a dream. I am honestly willing to fly to another state if New York starts selling out and they have tickets over there. Move over, Taylor Swift, the Eras Tour is so 2023! As a cinephile, my moment is here, and I am “ready for it!” For my fellow New Englanders, the Providence Place Cinemas in Providence, Rhode Island has an IMAX with a film projector. However, due to certain issues it had during “Oppenheimer’s” run there, I do not think that theater is going to end up screening “The Odyssey” in IMAX 70mm. One can hope, but I am worried it will not make the list.
Do you have to buy “The Odyssey” tickets right now? Not necessarily. Again, the showtimes available are limited. The film is not out for a year and they are inevitably going to add more times. Heck, the film could end up getting delayed, thereby making all these advance purchases irrelevant. But if you want to guarantee your spot as a part of film history, this might be a solid investment. Should the ticket gods by on my side, I plan to be a part of this cinematic event, and I hope to see you there in July 2026.
I also very much look forward to potentially bonding with my new best friend, the “refresh icon.”
Thanks for reading this post! This was a bit impromptu, but I had to get this off my chest because to be honest, the hype is real and I choose to be a part of it. There are probably people reading this right now, including my own friends and family that think I would be a madman for buying a movie ticket a year in advance in a theater far from home. They might be right, but I make no apologies. What if I move to that city? Who’s crazy now? That’s one less travel ticket I have to buy! That’s less gas in the car! I should not have to apologize for being a fan. That said, if you are getting tickets for “The Odyssey” a year in advance? What theater are you going to? What showtime? Maybe we will run into each other. I would love to meet my fellow movie fans. Let me know down below! In the meantime, please check out the official Facebook page if you want to be updated on my latest posts through social media! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
PS: If you plan to sell scalp tickets for this, do the world a favor and get off this page. In fact, even better, get off the Internet.
“The Accountant 2” is directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed this film’s 2016 predecessor. This film stars Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back), Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead, The Punisher), Cynthia Addai-Robinson (Spartacus, Arrow), Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Originals), and J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Whiplash). This film once again follows Christian Wolff who teams up with his brother, Braxton, to find mysterious assassins.
Before going to see “The Accountant 2” I made an effort to rewatch the original. If you remember my amateurish review you would know that I connected to the film at the time. This was mostly due to how the protagonist was written and executed. Ben Affleck plays an individual who has high functioning autism. I have grown up having many of the traits and quirks that we see from various stages of this character’s life such as his lack of urge to socialize with others. I also thought the film does a good job at providing a humanized portrayal of autism as opposed to a more stereotypical, robotic interpretation.
Is “The Accountant 2” as good as the first one? No, it is not. But is it still worth watching? Perhaps. My biggest problem with this film is that it feels less story-driven and a little more action driven. It’s like the writers listened to Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” and suddenly thought, “We’ve cracked the code!”
Now I have no problem with good action. And to be honest, this movie has some good action. However, the action scenes sometimes lack the oomph of those in the original. Part of it is because the story here is rather convoluted. I am not going to pretend the story in the original riveted me all the way through. The movie relied way too much on flashbacks towards the end to the point of utter boredom. But this sequel at times feels overstuffed.
While the film may be slightly above average, one great thing about it is the chemistry between Christian (Affleck) and Braxton (Bernthal). The film spends lots of time putting these two in the same place, and every scene between them is worth the price of admission. There is a fantastic scene where Bernthal says he wants a dog and Affleck says everything possible to confirm that he is a cat person. The delivery between these two is on point each and every time.
Going back to how I relate to the characters in this franchise, I almost see Christian and Braxton as a personal representation of a conflict that has been circling in my mind nonstop throughout my young adult life. While these two bond as brothers, they have their differences. One key difference between these two is their individual wants in life. We see Braxton as a lone wolf, which I have always been throughout most of my life. If he puts his mind to something, he does it. He works on his own terms. But then we find out a little bit about Christian, who would like to have a partner he can check in on every once in a while. In this way, Christian, is a little more than meets the eye. You would not expect someone of his mannerisms to be interested in a relationship, but I buy his desire. As I watched this film I thought these character differences represented my personal yin and yang. Do I love being alone? Quite a bit, actually. But do I want someone to check in on? A part of me thinks about it every day.
Speaking of conflicts, I have a conflicting opinion regarding Christian Wolff in this film. Starting with the positives, I genuinely think Ben Affleck put a lot of effort into his performance and he is a standout as the character. Although some of the choices that were made in regard to the character threw me off. I get that Wolff has autism, but he comes off as a robot in this film, especially in comparison to the original. If anything, Wolff is sometimes a lackluster stereotype for people on the spectrum. For some reason, some of his line delivery and choice of words lack authenticity. I would not say that this film paints autism in the worst light, but sometimes his performance, particularly through his onslaught of stoicism, is overly emphasized. Sure, in the original, Wolff may be a bit robotic, but he also has a heart as well as feelings. In this sequel, he sounds more like the T-800. Sure, Affleck is not entirely robotic. When paired with Bernthal in this film, the two seem like genuine brothers. But if I were to judge Affleck by himself, he is sometimes soulless. Again, this is not an incompetent performance. I just think a little more depth and pizzazz could have been added to it.
“The Accountant 2” is not a movie I can see myself renting or buying to watch on my own schedule. To me, it is a cable movie. It is a movie that I would watch on a Sunday at home and eventually rely on for background noise. Now whether this movie will ever end up on cable is another story. The film is from Amazon after all and I doubt they want anybody leaving Prime or whatever the heck MGM+ is. Seriously, who uses MGM+? Anyone? If you have not seen the original “Accountant,” I much recommend that film over this one. It moves at a better pace, is less convoluted, and honestly does a much better job at characterization than the sequel. I enjoyed getting to know Christian Wolff not only through his profession but as someone who is on the spectrum. I thought the flashbacks during that film, most of them anyway, were used to its benefit. Like this sequel, the original has some decent action, but I cared more about what happened during those action scenes based on what I was learning about Christian as a character at the time. The sequel’s action is not bad, but it suffers from inferior character progression as well as storytelling. If it were not for the perfect chemistry between Affleck and Bernthal, I do not think I would be lending as much praise to this film.
In the end, “The Accountant 2” has its ups and downs. There are other recent films I would recommend watching before this one, especially in the action genre. Although if you are simply looking for good action, you will find it here. But this film is not a full meal. It satisfies in some ways and leaves a little to be desired in others. Do not get me wrong, Ben Affleck does not do a bad job in this film, and neither does Jon Bernthal. But I would not rush to see this film right away. I am going to give “The Accountant 2” a 6/10.
“The Accountant 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Prime Video.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Sinners” is directed by Ryan Coogler (Creed, Black Panther) and stars Michael B. Jordan (Creed, Black Panther), Hailee Steinfeld (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Hawkeye), Miles Caton, Jack O’Connell (Back to Black, Skins), Wunmi Mosaku (Moses Jones, Vera), Jayme Lawson (How to Blow Up a Pipeline, The Batman), Omar Miller (Ballers, CSI: Miami), and Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods, The Good Fight). This film is about two criminal twin brothers who start over in their hometown, only to discover that a greater evil is about to welcome them back.
I have been eager to see “Sinners” since the first trailer dropped last year. It did not explain a ton, but like a lot of good first trailers, it gave “enough” to sell me. And that is putting things lightly. Because I thought it was very well put together. The film had a lot to like behind the scenes. Michael B. Jordan playing two roles… Other great cast members like Hailee Steinfeld in the supporting roles… Ryan Coogler in the director’s chair… Things were lining up perfectly. And to later find out that the film was shot on IMAX cameras, I could not be more in if I tried. The hype I had for this film was through the roof. So was it worth the excitement? To a certain degree, yes.
This might shock some of you, “Sinners” is not necessarily my favorite film of the year so far. If I had to be honest, I think it had some minor pacing issues and I cannot say I walked out of the theater remembering every single character’s name. I was engaged with the film, but I have seen better this year when it comes to the story. It is hard to say the film is overrated though. I can totally see why other people would consider it to be a masterpiece. I do want to watch the film again at some point, and I genuinely think it would benefit from a second viewing.
That said, I think when it comes to pure experiences, there are few that compare to “Sinners.” For the record, I saw this film in IMAX 70mm, meaning I was able to experience “Sinners” in the most definitive way possible, with the finest detail and clearest sound, so there were definitely some enhancements. Regardless of however you see “Sinners,” do so on the biggest screen you can.
This film is shot entirely on 65mm film, some of it in IMAX. Every frame of this film looks immaculate. Several shots might as well be a painting. This movie also makes history, as it is also the first film shot in IMAX by a woman. Autumn Durald Arkapaw is behind the camera for this project and there is so much to love about how she handled the end product. Many of the exterior shots in particular are going to linger in my mind throughout the year.
Much like another one of Ryan Coogler’s films, “Black Panther,” “Sinners” is a great time. Also like “Black Panther,” this is a film perhaps best suited for Ryan Coogler’s voice. This is a film that I, a straight white male, would probably sully if I were to write or direct it myself. There is a sense of pride in each scene, each shot, each line, and that is because of Coogler’s touch. He clearly knows what he is doing. If you remember “Black Panther,” one of my favorite moments from that film is this one action scene in a casino where the camera navigates between levels to get a solid view of different things that are going down. I thought it was a flawless one take scene, but without going into detail, there is a one take scene during this film that might surpass that moment if you ask me when it comes to execution.
Not too surprisingly, I am quite impressed with the film’s cast. Of course, you have a talented actor in Michael B. Jordan who plays not just one, but two roles. He does a good job here. Both of his characters have charisma. Despite some differences, the two twins genuinely feel like the same person at times. That might have been the point because watching these two reminded me of my own interactions with twins in real life. Mainly because as much as I have built a bond with some of them, I will admit, despite them wearing different outfits and letting off slightly different mannerisms, it is occasionally hard to tell which one is which unless you are digging for certain features.
From mainstay talent to young talent, this film is also the acting debut of Miles Caton. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Caton is going to have a great career. Now he is at the helm of a terrific director, so part of his on-screen talent may be owed to Ryan Coogler. Even so, seeing what I have seen of him in this movie, it shocks me that this is his first role. If anything I would figure he would have a few under his belt. Maybe they were never documented on his IMDb page, I do not know.
While I cannot see it winning an Academy Award, the standout performance for me in this film is Hailee Steinfeld as Mary. I think of all the characters in this movie, she is the one written in the sense that allows for the most range. If you have seen the trailer, you can probably get a sense of where this character is going, where the narrative takes her. But when it gets to “that” point, it is satisfying. I have seen Hailee Steinfeld in other projects, but this is arguably the most fun she has been on screen. It is not my favorite role of Steinfeld’s, but if I were to determine which role of hers appears to be the most fun, I think it comes down to “Sinners” and “The Edge of Seventeen.”
“Sinners” is a vampire movie, and it is a good vampire movie at that. But it kind of gives you a little bit more than just vampires. It takes on concepts such as brotherly connections, music, and then it goes ahead and plops in vampires as a bonus. And when it gets to the vampires, it is a treat. The film has its scary moments. It has its fun moments. The action during the vampire-centered scenes is very well done. This is a film that if you are to see it, try do so on the big screen. The music in the film is also attention-grabbing from the foot-tappable soundtrack to Ludwig Göransson’s admirable score.
If I had anything else to say, and I hate to say this, but I will be real, I am going to remember this film more for its second half than its first. For me, this film took a bit to get going, and I do mean a bit. But when it gets into gear, it goes at lightspeed. That said, the entire film is worth watching. Check it out.
In the end, “Sinners” is a thumbs up. It is another solid outing from director Ryan Coogler. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I could totally see “Sinners” getting some awards attention, especially in the technical categories like film editing and cinematography. But again, I do want to emphasize that this film is one that starts off okay but gets better as it goes. I do not want to confuse anybody. I never said this film was bad, but the second half is much more inviting to me than the first. I might be alone in this statement. I have talked to friends who say that this film is peak cinema. If anything, I think it is a fine movie. I would watch it again. And I will say this again, maybe it would benefit from a second watch. I am going to give “Sinners” a 7/10.
“Sinners” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Marvel’s latest project, “Thunderbolts*!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Rust,” “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “The Accountant 2.” If you want to see my thoughts on these films 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 “Sinners?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film directed by Ryan Coogler? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“I’m Still Here” is directed by Walter Salles (Central Station, The Motorcycle Diaries) and stars Fernanda Torres (Love Me Forever or Never, The House of Sand), Selton Mello (A Dog’s Will, Lisbela and the Prisoner), and Fernanda Montenegro (Sweet Mother, Central Station). This film is based on a memoir of the same name and is about a mother who deals with the forced disappearance of her husband, former politician Rubens Paiva, who opposed Brazil’s military dictatorship.
In an effort to catch all of this year’s Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, I had to find a way to check “I’m Still Here” off my list. One key difference when it comes to this nominee in particular compared to say “Anora” or “Wicked” or “Dune: Part Two” is that I went into this film knowing nothing about it. All that I really knew was that it was a Brazilian movie, the characters speak Portuguese, and it was getting a lot of critical acclaim. I went in completely blind, having barely come across as much as a poster. Safe to say, I did not know what to expect.
Thankfully, I came out of this movie feeling satisfied.
“I’m Still Here” is not an easy watch. Some of my audience might think I say such a thing because this is a film not made in the United States or a film where English is not the primary language used in the dialogue.. That is not my point. Though I can see why those two things could turn some people off upon a first impression. Instead, this film deals with a serious subject matter that I imagine would be tough for some viewers. The film is dramatic, yet grounded at the same time. It is perfectly balanced in its attempt to be both an inviting slice of life story and an engaging political thriller. The film is like life itself. It has its happy moments. It has its sad moments. And in the long run, it is worth seeking out.
One of my favorite things about this film is how it handles the importance of family, especially when you consider the protagonist’s point of view, as well as the many obstacles she must face just to be with them, or do what is best for them. We see her trying to protect them under their respective political landscape, as well as do anything and everything she can to uncover her husband’s whereabouts. The film shows what it means to stay connected even in the darkest of times.
The family itself is well written and decently cast. There is not a single person on the lineup I found to be out of place, and I thought everyone’s personality shone through. Honestly, the entire cast of the film serves their purpose and does a good job. I cannot name a bad apple on the tree. But Fernanda Torres is on another level with her performance here.
There is a reason why Fernanda Torres was nominated for an Academy Award. She is the film’s soul and I cannot see anyone else playing her. Every moment, every line, every facial expression, she sold me. Torres is commanding in every scene. The movie gives her a lot to do and she handles all of her material very well. I have been doing some research online to see what everyone is saying about this film, and just about every other person I am coming across is losing their mind over Torres. I may not be adding anything new to the conversation that has not already been said, but she is easily the best part of the movie.
This film is based on true events. On that note, the story features real life politician Rubens Paiva (left). I do not know a ton about the real events that inspired this film, but I did some research on Paiva following the film and I have to say kudos to whoever cast Selton Mello, because he looks the part. Granted, acting ability is arguably more important, and thankfully, he has that in spades.
One of the reasons why I have come to realize “I’m Still Here” has some of the best collective acting in 2024 cinema is likely because of the way the film was shot. If you know how movie productions tend to work, not every project is shot in chronological order. “I’m Still Here” is an exception to the rule. I think this move paid off, because it allowed the talent to experience the sense of immersion in their story that viewers like I did while watching it unfold.
On that note, “I’m Still Here” is quite an immersive movie. “I’m Still Here” has more in common with a slice of life tale than a large scale epic, but the movie sometimes feels as large as life itself. Whether I was at a family gathering, the beach, or the inside of a home, I felt like I was a part of this film’s world. Such a sentiment is also true for a prison, which does not emit the most pleasant feeling, but every scene in this film, like it or not, had a sense of verisimilitude. The film takes time to showcase the beauty of life, but also keeps things real by reminding people of the extreme obstacles our characters constantly encounter.
At times, this movie is the definition of the idea that life goes on. An integral part of your life may cease to exist, but as long as you are still around, it is up to you to decide how to navigate things going forward. You could remember your past, run from it, choose to reinvent yourself. Sometimes that integral part may leave you in a literal sense, but deep down, it will always be with you.
The movie ends on a satisfying note. The final scene is exquisitely acted and well directed. It also goes to show the power of silence. Filmmaking is a visual medium, and any opportunity that can be taken to let the visuals do the talking allows for great scenes like this one. I will leave the details undisclosed for now and let you see the proper craftsmanship for yourself.
In the end, “I’m Still Here” was kind of a last minute purchase for me. I probably would not have seen this film if it were not for the word of mouth it racked up during this awards season. And I am happy to have added to it. This film is full of great performances, gripping scenes, and solid chemistry amongst its cast. Of course, Fernanda Torres is the standout, but the supporting actors also add quite a bit to the final product. It is not an easy watch, but I think if you can handle the material, this movie could be worth your time. I am going to give “I’m Still Here” a 7/10.
“I’m Still Here” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! I have reviews on the way for “Riff Raff,” “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” and “Locked.” Stay tuned!
And coming on March 30th, look forward to the 7th Annual Jack Awards! The most important awards show in the history of movie blogs! Why? Because I said so! This is a reminder that you have the power to vote for this year’s Best Picture! You can do so by clicking this link and choosing one of the ten nominees. And click this link if you want to know what films are nominated for this year’s ceremony! Unfortunately, “I’m Still Here” was not nominated for any awards this year, but if I were to add a sixth candidate for Best Actress, Fernanda Torres would probably earn that spot. It was a very close call. But rules are rules. I did see this movie before announcing the nominations last week, but Torres’ honestly goes to show how great acting has been across the board for several performers over the past year. If you want to see this upcoming show 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 “I’m Still Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the saddest film you saw in the past year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Colors Within” is directed by Naoko Yamada (A Silent Voice: The Movie, K-On!) and stars Akari Takaishi (Watashi no Ichiban Saiakuna Tomodachi, Baby Assassins), Sayu Suzukawa (Cool Doji Danshi, Falling high school girl and Irresponsible teacher), Taisei Kido (First Love, Yuria-sensei no Akai Ito), and Yui Aragaki (Digimon Data Squad, Mixed Doubles). This film centers around a girl named Totsuko. She is in a band and can see the colors of other people.
January has been a very slow month for me in terms of movies. Granted, it is typically a slow month for movies in general. There really is not a lot coming out this month that caught my genuine interest. Although “The Colors Within” was an exception. The concept sounded rather intriguing, particularly in regards to how the movie seems to handle its protagonist. While the protagonist’s life could be ordinary, their extraordinary trait certainly stood out to me, particularly their ability to see color. Or, more accurately, to see color in a way that most people do not. I think that could make for not only an interesting story, but one that is visually inviting.
As expected, the animation style for “The Colors Within” is pleasant to the naked eye. Is it the best I have ever seen? No. However, it is still a style that pops and maintains a consistent bright palette to it. It is a welcoming look considering the movie, despite having occasional drama, always maintains a sense of lightheartedness. By the end of this movie, I left with a smile, and part of it may have been due to looking at something that appeared rather heavenly at times.
Color-wise, the movie tends to live up to its name, but I have to be frank. If I were to judge “The Colors Within” by its cover so to speak, I have to say that the concept at times feels gimmicky. When the movie tells its audience about its main character’s ability to see color, it sounds intriguing. But I feel like the movie minimizes its chances to show such an aspect in a visually stunning manner. Granted, I enjoyed seeing our main character use her unique trait as a point of inspiration in making music. In fact, if I had to name a favorite part of the movie, it would be getting to see a few artists coming together to get creative. “The Colors Within” reminds me of “Sing Sing,” which, spoiler, I think is a better movie. It is a movie about a bunch of people expressing themselves through art, and how art lets people forget their troubles. Again, going back to the animation of the film, I do think it looks nice. But I think the film’s animation barely enhances the story. Looking back, it barely feels different than if I were to see something more traditional within the anime medium. Does the film effectively convey the protagonist’s “power” so to speak? You could say that, yes. But it really does not add much to the overall experience if you ask me.
The film also features a list of original songs, all of which are at minimum, fun to listen to. There is one in particular that is repeated during the film that became rather catchy by the end. Also, as a piece of music, it was nice to see this one song evolve from a simple idea to something much bigger. It reminds me of some of my own projects. There was a short film that I created in college that I thought of based on one of my own weird interests. I made it with a couple other people who had their own ideas that they built on top of it. It was amazing to see this small idea develop. Seeing Totsuko brainstorm her own song and have it come to life kind of reminded me of the process of creating my own art.
This film mainly revolves around three main characters. Totsuko, Kimi, and Rui. The three come together to make music. I love seeing them all in the same room. Not only do they come off as genuine friends, but seeing them together allows each one to unleash the deepest part of themselves. That is when they are most honest about how they feel, what is going on in their lives. It allows for some of the film’s most emotionally hypnotic scenes. We find out not only do they enjoy making music, but how such a passion interferes with their personal lives.
We find out Rui loves making music, but his family expects him to become a doctor and take the next step in the family business. I think a good amount of people can relate to Rui’s dilemma. Rui seems so concerned with impressing his parents that he is having trouble accepting what he really wants to do. I am all the more invested in a character knowing not only is he having fun doing what he is doing, but he is feeling perhaps the freest he has felt in his life.
Kimi also has a problem where if she were to be honest about it, she could end up disappointing her own family. We find out Kimi dropped out of school and has yet to tell her grandmother about it. The film’s characters seem to share the commonality of holding something back, hiding their true thoughts, and maybe not being their full selves. When we see them make music however, that changes. We see them at their happiest, their liveliest. That happiness leaps off the screen to the point where I too am smiling.
To be real with you, while most of the movie revolves around Totsuko, I admittedly found myself latching more to the supporting characters in terms of their backstory. I found their presence to be more compelling. This is not to say Totsuko is a horribly written character. I do not hate her. Again, I think the “colors” aspect was not as well established as it could have been. It had potential, but I do not think all of it was unleashed properly. But I think Totsuko is a pleasant center to the film as she sees her two bandmates flesh themselves out.
In the end, “The Colors Within” is just plain fun. It took me awhile to take the anime medium seriously as someone who watches a lot of movies. While I never outright hated it, it was always hard to find a gateway to watching more of it. I am glad watching films like “Belle” a few years back have opened my eyes because it has allowed me to seek out great projects like this. If you are a creative individual, I highly recommend this film. I will be real, 2025 is off to a crazy start between the Los Angeles wildfires, the political division, the recent plane and helicopter collision in Washington, DC… I said earlier that this film highlights art’s abilities to make you forget your troubles. I think there is a case to be made that while “The Colors Within” will not make your problems in life disappear, they will be left in the background for sometime. I left this movie feeling giddy, and excited to watch it again at some point. I think some of you reading this review will feel the same way if you were to seek this movie out. I already watched this film in the Japanese language, and I am eager to check out the English dub when I get the chance. I am going to give “The Colors Within” a 7/10.
“The Colors Within” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Dog Man” and “Love Me.” 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 “The Colors Within?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that you enjoy about artistic expression? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Kraven the Hunter” is directed by J.C. Chandor (A Most Violent Year, Margin Call) and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Gladiator II), Alessandro Nivola (Amsterdam, Jurassic Park III), Christopher Abbott (Girls, The Sinner), and Russell Crowe (Thor: Love and Thunder, Gladiator). This film is about Sergei Kravinoff, AKA Kraven the Hunter, and explores his complex relationship with his father in addition to how he uses his hunting skills to find targets and seek revenge.
Have you guys ever heard the saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,”? That phrase could almost apply to my experience with the Sony Spider-Man Universe. Note the use of the word almost. I say this because I basically go to see Sony’s Spider-Man villain standalone films out of obligation. Very rarely do I look forward to these movies. I think the closest I got to actually looking forward to one of these movies was “Morbius,” which ended up being my worst film of 2022. Although now that I think about it, I was intrigued by at least one trailer for “Venom: Let There be Carnage” before it came out. At least there is that.
For those playing catchup, let me give you the rundown so far on my thoughts on all the movies in the Sony Spider-Man universe… First “Venom” movie… Terrible! A lot of people seem to think it is okay. I think it is one of the most bland, boring, and horribly polished comic book movies ever made. Second “Venom” movie… Actually, pretty good. I thought the action was fun, it ups the one good thing about the original movie, specifically the humor. And it contains maybe the greatest PG-13 f-bomb in cinematic history. “Morbius…” A big fat joke! Other than Jared Leto’s performance and parts of the first act, there is nothing redeeming about this film. Oh yeah, let’s not forget that the marketing lied to its audience and the film may be responsible for the most tacked on and abysmal end credits scenes of all time. “Madame Web…” somehow WORSE than “Morbius!” Not even big name actors can save this abomination! Also, for some reason, this schlock saw the light of day despite being written by the same team who wrote “Morbius.” Bad dialogue, okay at best action, horrible camerawork, and another case of deceptive marketing. Genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen, and if you think I am saying this for dramatic effect, I have some magic beans to sell you. And lastly, “Venom: The Last Dance…” Safe to say, I was immensely bored. Other than the chemistry between Eddie and the titular character on top of one admirable motivation between them, I thought this threequel was a waste of time. Add on a whole Area 51 subplot that nearly put me to sleep, then you have a recipe for, surprisingly, the second best Sony Spider-Man Universe movie. How sad.
Thus far, the Sony Spider-Man Universe, or whatever you want to call it at this point, is one for five. People say the recently finished DCEU sucks compared to the MCU? Oh, boy oh boy, this universe WISHES it were the DCEU! That universe has cinematic bangers like “Wonder Woman” and “The Suicide Squad!” The DCEU even spawned the incredible TV series “Peacemaker!” While definitely inconsistent, when that cinematic universe fired on all cylinders, it was on the right track. But “Kraven the Hunter” had something attached to it that the other movies did not… An R rating! Yeah! That “Morbius” nonsense? That is for babies! Now it is daddy’s turn! If “Deadpool” can get away with an R, so can “Kraven!”
Having seen the movie, it may be able to get away with an R, but it certainly is not getting away from my infinite rage. This is yet another epic fail for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. Though am I really surprised?
Sony, how many times do we have to do this same old song and dance before it becomes stale? I think this is a great question.
…If I were an imbecile!
This whole Sony Spider-Man Barrel of Monkeys was already stale from the first of these wannabe “Spider-Man” flicks. I ask this question specifically to you guys. Genuinely! What on earth are you doing?! What is it going to take for this saga of nonsense to end?! I understand that the rights to “Spider-Man” are your most valuable asset, but if you keep making movies like these, then this whole property is going to be a joke. Tom Holland is not going to be playing the character forever. The “Spider-Verse” series can only go on for so long. You can only do so many crossovers involving the three live-action Spider-Men before they stop acting. The solution is not to continue making cheap, boring anti-hero movies featuring villains as the main character. Movies like “Kraven the Hunter” justify cases where movies like “Batgirl” get scrapped by the studio for a tax write-off.
Honestly, if someone popped me the question as to which movie I would want to watch more, and I had to pick between the first “Venom” and “Kraven the Hunter,” I might go with “Venom!” At least in “Venom,” you had some occasional funny lines and some decent chemistry between the two main characters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is clearly giving the lead role his all here. But he does not have a great script to back him up. While Aaron Taylor-Johnson is playing the lead role, he is not even the most high profile actor on the roster. The film also features Russell Crowe, and I think it is safe to say that I was not entertained by his completely one-dimensional so-called character. Crowe plays Kraven’s father, and not only is he unworthy of even a Dollar Tree card on Father’s Day, but he has incredibly repetitive, cliche dialogue. The movie clearly establishes him as far from the finest father figure. That seems to be the point at times. But I cared so little about the story and characters of this film to the point where Crowe’s character comes off as a joke.
Then you have Ariana DeBose, who is one of the most dynamic, lively, energetic talents working today. The woman in the past couple years deservedly won an Academy Award for “West Side Story.” She was also pretty good in other films following that, even if they did not get the best reviews. Unpopular opinion, I really liked “Wish…” I said what I said. DeBose, to my shock and amazement, plays one of the most forgettable core characters of a comic book film I have ever seen. If you were to ask me what the purpose of this character was in a few years from now, I will probably refer to her as the boring tarot card lady or something, because while her presence serves the story, it does so in maybe the dullest way possible. Shoutout to Sony for making two movies in the same year that somehow made me give me even less of a crap about tarot cards than I already do. Anybody remember the film “Tarot” from earlier this year? No? If you are loyal to this blog you will hear about it again soon on the top 10 worst movies of 2024 list once I get finished with that. You know, kind of like this atrocity some like to call a comic book movie.
Going back to what I said about “Madame Web” and how a big name cast could not save the film from being bad. I think “Kraven the Hunter” somehow takes that inferiority to another level. Because yes, Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney have been in big projects. Some good, some bad. That is the classic life of an actor, but they are both lucky enough to achieve their level of fame. Sweeney has been nominated for a couple Primetime Emmys so congrats to her. That said, “Kraven the Hunter” is much more excruciating to think about because while “Madame Web’s” Sweeney has gotten some awards attention, “Kraven” has multiple actors who have actually have prestigious awards on their mantle.
Again, you have Russell Crowe who has an extended career, an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, and two Golden Globes. Circling back to Ariana DeBose, it was like watching Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy in “Batman & Robin,” but worse. Because while Thurman was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in “Pulp Fiction,” a couple years before that flopbuster came out, DeBose actually WON her Academy Award. I do not think DeBose’s performance is Razzie-worthy. There is nothing extreme about it that makes it stand out as one of the worst performances of all time. The best word I can use to describe it would be “tiring.” I guess that is one reason to watch this movie again. If I am really tired and want to catch some z’s, “Kraven the Hunter” might make for solid background noise.
I will be fair to Crowe, however. As infuriating as his character is to watch, I must admit he makes the most of a crappy script with his chops. Crowe does his best with the material to the point where I almost cannot imagine anyone else in his role. So… Yay?…
Another actor I enjoyed watching in this hot mess? Aaron Taylor-Johnson. No, it is not because of his abs. He legit does an okay job as the lead. Again, his character is not written well. But I buy him in the role. He is not perfect, but he definitely has an inkling of charisma. I just wish such charisma were saved for something that would not be a waste of my time and money. That is another consistency with these Sony movies. As much as I do not like “Venom,” I still think Tom Hardy is well cast as the lead role. Same goes for Jared Leto in “Morbius.”
For those of you who saw the first eight minutes of the movie when it dropped online, you would know it starts off with, admittedly, a halfway decent action sequence. That adjective might as well be used to describe a good amount of the action in this film. The action does not reinvent the wheel. There are a couple cuts that I thought were a little too quick, but for the most part, the action is one of the better parts of the movie. “Kraven the Hunter” sometimes finds its footing in some places, but when it comes to structure, that is definitely not one of those places. Sure, the movie starts off with a decent action scene that could likely hook viewers into the story. But then we get to the part of the film that dives into Kraven’s origins. The timing of this transition feels abrupt and out of place. Given the length of these moments and how long it deviates from what we already saw in Kraven’s adulthood, I would have preferred for the final cut of the film to start with Kraven’s origins. It would allow me to more easily know and understand the characters that way if we were to get to an action sequence like the one we see at the beginning, I would probably care a little more about the people in the scene and possibly the sequence itself.
I will give props to Sony for not hiring Mark Sazama and Burk Sharpless to write this film. Although to be fair, they were probably already busy figuring out how to beat the odds and make a worse screenplay for “Madame Web” than they did for “Morbius.” Spoiler alert, they did. Instead, this film has three writers. You have Richard Wenk, known for writing the “Equalizer” movies starring Denzel Washington. I have not watched those films, but I have heard good things. His resume contains some other notable work, but oddly enough, I cannot give my opinion on any of his titles because I never watched any of them. As for the other two writers, you have Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. These are two of the four writers responsible for one of the better Marvel Cinematic Universe films, “Iron Man.” Although the rest of their resume is not particularly great. There is “Men in Black: International,” which I actually liked. But there are also a lot of people who would challenge my unpopular opinion. They just did “Uncharted,” which has a couple cool action scenes, but the screenplay has nothing that stands out about it. The film itself is rather unmemorable. Then we travel back in time to my least favorite movie of theirs, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” My biggest problem with the film is with the headache-inducing use of IMAX technology that honestly leaves no one but Michael Bay to blame. But if I had another notable problem, it is that the film’s script repeats the problems of the previous movies, but somehow delivers maybe the least engaging journey the franchise has given yet. Going back even further to a movie I did not see, these two even did “Punisher: War Zone,” which was not only poorly reviewed, but with more than $10 million total, it made less money at the box office than any other movie based on Marvel Comics. Part of me is convinced that Sony could be having a streak of bad luck, but then I look at the resumes of the people they hire and I think either their options are limited, they are choosing the wrong people, or they have better options out there and do not want to spend more money on them. I have no clue.
In all seriousness though, this trio of writers managed to join forces to create one of the most snore-inducing films of the year. I do not think there is any way to sugarcoat this. It is also full of Academy Award-level lines like “I’m a hunter.” In addition to Russell Crowe repeatedly telling his boys, and therefore the audience, that their mother died and she was weak. As I watched this movie and came to realize the director and cast handled their material, I honestly thought “Kraven the Hunter” has a feel that is kind of similar to “The Room.” I say kind of because unlike “The Room,” the chances of me ever watching “Kraven the Hunter” again are pretty slim. But this is a movie that I can honestly watch, acknowledge how bad it is, and sometimes burst out laughing for the wrong reasons. If you want a more genre-related example, I will go back to the recently mentioned “Batman & Robin.” It definitely makes me laugh, but the humor sometimes feels accidental.
You know the Island of Misfit Toys from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?” If there were ever a place I could associate with this universe, that would be it. I assume most inhabitants, or in this case, filmmakers, actors, producers, crew, etc., that make it up are kind, but compared to the toys Santa delivers to kids on Christmas, which in this case would be Disney’s MCU and Warner Brothers’ DCEU, Sony’s got its own little private island full of outcasts. I have not gone back to watch a single Sony Spider-Man Enigmaverse movie since seeing them in the theater, other than “Venom: Let There be Carnage” when it was airing one time on cable. It is like that scene from “Toy Story 2” where Andy picks up Woody and says he does not want to play with him anymore, except in this case, the toy is fresh out of the box and has barely been used.
This is why I ask Sony not to sell the rights to “Spider-Man…” I really want to see them pump out that third “Spider-Verse” movie. Instead I would like Sony to stop with these standalone villain spinoffs. These are not movies, these are corporate products designed by people trying to fill a release slot and keep the rights just a while longer. “Kraven the Hunter” is the latest example of this. If you are looking for Spider-Man connections in this film, all you are getting are secondary characters who appear in various Spider-Man properties who are poorly executed, and one scene where a ton of spiders are on screen. It is not even a good scene! Spider-Man is not in this movie. Peter Parker is not in this movie. Although the Rhino is in this movie. This time around is better than how the character was presented in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but that does not really say much.
Speaking of which, let’s talk about the CGI… This movie is chock-full of distractingly noticeable visuals. Going back to Rhino, that is one example. You can definitely tell he has fake skin, but I would not even consider that the worst CGI in this film. This film has multiple scenes containing animals, including a lion I thought looked somewhat artificial, but at most I would consider to be tolerable. The animals that stood out to me the most in terms of how offputting they looked are the buffalo. And there are a lot of them in this movie. There is this scene where this buffalo is holding steady in front of Kraven. They are in the middle of a field. When that buffalo is staying still, all that allows me to do is take in as much detail as possible to realize that the creature looks like something out of a video game. When Kraven is looking at this buffalo, he comes off like he is staring at a picture instead of something live.
Sony, please. Just stop! I have had it up to here at this point! This year is the 100th anniversary of Columbia Pictures. When it comes to celebrating it, this, “Venom: The Last Dance,” and “Madame Web” were clearly not the best ways to do it on the Marvel front. I am thankful they brought all the old “Spider-Man” movies back to theaters. I went back to watch “Spider-Man 2” and “Spider-Man 3” in the theater this year. If for whatever reason Sony decides to do some anniversary screening for “Kraven the Hunter,” I am going to give it a hard pass.
In the end, “Kraven the Hunter” sucks. Plain and simple. It is a poorly structured, badly edited, laughably acted, shoddily directed misfire that I would not recommend to anyone. I will honestly watch “Venom: The Last Dance” three more times before turning this movie on again. Yes, there are positives. The action is okay. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a good choice to play Kraven. And even though Russell Crowe plays an unlikable character, he at least acts like he is giving two squirts of urine about his role. “Kraven the Hunter” is not a movie. It is a series of scenes spliced together by a corporation to continue preserving franchise rights. If this is the last movie we see in the Sony Spider-Man Insert Clever Name Here, good riddance. I am going to give “Kraven the Hunter” a 2/10.
“Kraven the Hunter” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” and “Flow.” 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 “Kraven the Hunter?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your 2024 comic book movies ranked? What a terrible question that must be… That is like ranking your children, and you are choosing your favorite child based on which one you find the least irritating. I will admit, I did not even see “The Crow” this year. I think I dodged a bullet with that one. That said, there were plenty of awful comic book films this year to make up for whatever that one would end up being. If you have a ranking, list your top movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Juror #2” is directed by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino) and stars Nicholas Hoult (The Menu, The Garfield Movie), Toni Collette (Hereditary, The Way Way Back), J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Saturday Night), Chris Messina (I.S.S., The Mindy Project), Zoey Deutch (The Suite Life on Deck, The Politician), Cedric Yarborough (Speechless, The Goldbergs), and Kiefer Sutherland (Flatliners, Designated Survivor). This film is about a family man who struggles with a moral dilemma while serving as a juror on a high-profile murder trial.
As a hardcore moviegoer, I am always intrigued when I know I have the opportunity to take part in a unique experience. Over the past number of years, I have seen various Christopher Nolan movies in IMAX 70mm. I went to a free screening of the 2020 film “Emma.” at a theater just outside of Boston because the film’s star and director, Anya Taylor-Joy and Autumn de Wilde, were there as part of their press tour. During a vacation in Los Angeles, I ended up watching “Turning Red” at the El Capitan Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard just days into its 2022 release. With the film dropping on Disney+ at the same time, the El Capitan was one of the few ways I could actually see the film in a cinema. The film was playing in select locations in California and New York, and I was lucky enough to be close to one of them.
Similar to that last example, “Juror #2” continuously played in a limited number of theaters since its early November release. I was lucky enough to catch a screening at one of these theaters on the fourth week of its run. I say this not just because of the limited availability, but because the film is so good that it makes me wish more theaters were playing it.
Unfortunately, after just a little more than a month, it looks like the movie’s theatrical run has come to an end. Even in markets like New York and Los Angeles, there are no showtimes to be found. The film is however available for home viewing, and while it is not guaranteed you will get the definitive experience, you certainly will get a great film. This is one of the most engaging movies I have watched all year. It is not short on edge of your seat moments and stellar characterization. The film is helmed by Clint Eastwood, and it amazes me to know that he is 94 years old and still making movies as excellent as this.
Nicholas Hoult plays the film’s lead, Justin Kemp, and he kills it. I do not think Hoult is going to win an Oscar this season, but if he does, or at least gets nominated, I think he has the film’s scribe, Jonathan Abrams, to thank to a certain degree for giving him such delicious material to work with. Hoult is given quite a bit to do in this film, and he handles all of it very well. He plays a complicated character who loses not even a single ounce of admirability as he goes on.
This film puts Justin Kemp, in a place where you can easily see his internal struggle. He runs into a scenario that I could imagine most people with a sense of decency would never want to face. The film presents his journey in such a way that makes me like his character the entire time, even though I know he kind of has a dark side. I do not mean this in a bad boy or admirable jerk or lovable idiot kind of sense. Kemp is genuinely a good guy who must deal with the consequences that are given to him. He is not perfect, but the movie gives you enough background to like him despite his flaws.
Hoult easily outshines everyone in the supporting cast, who are by no means doing a bad job, but Hoult is in a league of his own. That said I think Amy Aquino is likable as Judge Thelma Hollub. She plays the part well. The same can be said for Toni Collette, Chris Messina, and Kiefer Sutherland (above) as Faith Killebrew, Eric Resnick, and Larry Lasker respectively. Some of the supporting jurors get their moment to shine when it is relevant to the story. A few of those moments stood out. I also enjoyed seeing one juror who was written in such a way where the movie presents her to be brainwashed by cliches of the true crime genre. That said if I had one complaint, and it is a minor gripe if anything, this film for the most part feels grounded, that character is almost a cartoon in certain moments. I do not dislike her, but tonally, she almost feels like she is in a different project.
While Hoult’s chances this awards season are still up for debate, I have to say “Juror #2” has some of the cleanest editing I have seen in a film all year. The film is essentially linear, though it also contains perfectly placed flashbacks and each moment is timed perfectly to generate a proper reaction. There are quite a few moments where this movie had my eyes glued to the screen and a lot of it has to do with how long it took me to process each moment.
The film also ends on a perfect note. I will not spoil it because as far as I am concerned, Warner Brothers for some reason wants no one on earth to see this film. But as if the final 10, 20 minutes are already engaging enough, the film throws in an appropriate final note. One could argue that this final note is predictable. I would not judge you for saying that, but I would say it is fitting, so I would not use the “predictable” complaint here. I would rather have a predictable ending that makes sense as opposed to an out of left field ending that has no place in the narrative whatsoever. To me, this final note is done in such a way where I like it more for its overall execution as opposed to the fact that someone thought to insert it in the film to begin with. I think such a sentiment can fit for the rest of the film. The film itself is not entirely predictable. It has parts that you can tell a certain thing is probably going to happen, but every action in this film is done in what can almost be described as the finest way possible.
With Clint Eastwood being 94 years old, there is a possibility that “Juror #2” could be his last film. If that is the case, I would like to say that this is a much better way to cap things off than the middle of the road 2021 film “Cry Macho.” But also, I hope that by some miracle, “Juror #2” comes back to theaters so more people can see it on the big screen. This is a film that if it were released in a wider capacity, probably would have generated more discussion about the legal system, moral dilemmas, and been a water-cooler conversation piece. I wish the movie to have some success at home, but like a lot of movies that go to theaters, I wish it had more time and accessibility. Sure, it is probably going to rack up solid word of mouth. But I wish it had a bigger release that way people watching it at home are more likely to have faith that it is going to be worth their time. And for the case of “Juror #2,” it is definitely worth your time.
In the end, there are a number of reasons to watch “Juror #2.” It is a spectacularly written, well-paced, thought provoking thriller. Nicholas Hoult, again, probably is not going to win that many awards this season, but I would not be mad if he gets one or two nominations because he plays one of the most complicated characters I have seen in any film this year. The film’s supporting cost from Toni Collette to Chris Messina to even J.K. Simmons all play their roles nicely. If this is Clint Eastwood’s swan song, it is a great note to end on. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The quality of this project only makes me curious to know if he has another one just as good up his sleeve. I am going to give “Juror #2” an 8/10.
In fact, going back to “Cry Macho,” “Juror #2” has now made more money at the box office in a handful of theaters than “Cry Macho” did during its entire run. For the record, “Cry Macho” made $16.5 million whereas “Juror #2” has racked up $19.9 million. Both failed to make their budget back, but I honestly would have liked to know what the case would have been if “Juror #2” were playing more in rural areas and the suburbs. Granted, there are external factors affecting “Cry Macho’s” release including a simultaneous drop on HBO Max and continued questioning over safety when it comes to COVID-19. But even so, for this film to make as much money as it did given the circumstances is not bad. I just wish there were more ways to see it.
“Juror #2” is now available on VOD and is available on Max for all subscribers on December 20th.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for one of the most popular movies out right now, “Wicked.” I had a chance to see it opening weekend, so I will let you know my thoughts on the phenomenon. Also coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Juror #2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Clint Eastwood film? There are plenty to choose from, so let me know which one you think is best down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“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” 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” 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!
Scene Before 