Musical

Wicked: For Good (2025): Can This Second Half Follow the Yellow Brick Road?

Posted on by Jack Drees

© Universal Pictures

“Wicked: For Good” is directed by Jon M. Chu, who also directed the prior “Wicked” installment. This film stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Jurassic World: Rebirth, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater (Lost on a Mountain in Maine, Gen V), Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Independence Day). This film is the second in a two-part adaptation of the “Wicked” musical, which itself is based on a book of the same name. In this story, we see our main characters from the first film return as they embrace their identities of Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

If you read my review for “Wicked” over the past year, you would notice that I have not offered the fondest of opinions regarding the film. While I acknowledge the film is by no means broken, I found it to be mostly slow. I thought a lot of the musical numbers were not doing it for me. And I thought some of the film’s technical aspects such as the color grading needed improvement. That said, I know that movie has its fans. I will even say there are things I liked about it. While most of the music failed to impress me, signature songs like “Popular” and “Flying Gravity” were well executed. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are excellent as the main duo. And even though I thought the film could have been more aesthetically pleasing in certain regards, I was impressed by the production design.

I was quite nervous for this sequel, because I acknowledge that I probably pooped on a lot of people’s parties when it comes to my opinion on the first film. A lot of people I know really dug it. Those people were also looking forward to this one. The film was a shining star over the past awards season, but I wish I aligned with those who praised it. Given how I am a Movie Reviewing Moron of the people, I used one of my A-List reservations to see this film opening weekend.

Having now seen the film, I cannot say “Wicked: For Good” surprised me in any way. I expected to not like the film, and that is exactly what happened. Of course, I go into every movie wanting it to be good. But in the case of “Wicked: For Good,” it did not do it for me.

© Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of positives in “Wicked: For Good.” Many of the things that I found to work in the first film also work here. Then again, this should not be a big surprise given how both titles were shot back to back. That said, much like the original film, the sequel wowed in terms of its production design. Oz feels just as grand as I recall it feeling a year ago. I thought the music was great, and in some ways, it was an improvement over the first part. There were bits of the first film where it felt like the characters were singing almost unnecessarily. In this sequel, every song seemed to have a purpose. They either fit the moment or enhanced a character’s arc. During my review for the first film, I pointed out that the music became so loud at my screening to the point where I almost had a headache. At the risk of torturing myself, I ended up seeing “Wicked: For Good” at the exact same theater and auditorium, which is a Dolby Cinema at an AMC location. I do not know if they turned the volume down in that theater, but I found the soundtrack much more comfortable to listen to than the one from the original. Speaking of sound, the sound editing was top notch. For example, I like the attention to detail the movie gives whenever Glinda is in her bubble. You can hear a little blockage coming through whenever she talks because the camera’s point of view is from the outside of the vehicle.

Another point of praise I would have to give is that most of the cast does a good job with the material they are given. Of course, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, who had dynamite chemistry in the first film, work well together this time around, that is during whichever moments allow the two to be on screen together.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

I am not going to pretend that I found the first film’s screenplay to be phenomenal, but there was at least a novelty to it even though it was based on both a play and a book. This film’s script is consistent with the first film in certain ways. Therefore, like the first film, I found a lot of the fantastical vocabulary to be rather annoying. I get that this film is not directly set on earth, but a lot of the diction dropped by select characters including “thrillifying,” “obsessulated,” and most especially “clock tick” felt too over the top. Every time a character in this film said the words “clock tick,” it felt tacked on. It did not feel authentic, even for Oz. It came off as a fantasy version of “Mean Girls” where instead of people trying make fetch happen, they were trying to make “clock tick” happen.

When I reviewed “Wicked” last year, I pointed out that there was a pink and green tint attached in my presentation. That was not the case this time. I can only make an assumption, but maybe the projector had a filter that should have been removed. I do not know if it was a 3D filter because the screen did not look that dark. Point is, the screen looked normal during “Wicked: For Good.” Shoutout to the staff at the AMC Liberty Tree Mall 20 for the upkeep. I found “Wicked: For Good” to look much better than the original “Wicked” did during my initial watch. The sequel’s viewing experience fully allowed me to see the film the way Jon M. Chu intended. Sadly, I do not know if his vision satisfied me all that much. “Wicked: For Good,” like its predecessor, feels lacking in color. Again, the set design is great. I will even say a quite a bit of the framing is pretty good. But I think the color grading could have been pinched up a little bit, and a lot of the shots seem to lack personality. I hate saying this, because I have a soft spot for these movies, but these “Wicked” films look like select MCU films. They look slapped together and almost done on the fly. Like the original, “Wicked: For Good” has some decent shots, but it is also packed with a lot of shots that look gray, digital, and lifeless.

© PHOTO BY: UNIVERSAL PICTURES – © 2025 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Overall, I found this film to engage me more than the original did. That said, this film will definitely be enhanced by watching the original, as much as I do not recommend doing so. I found “For Good” to start off with a bang. It quickly establishes the Wicked Witch as a threat amongst Oz, or at least a threat in people’s minds. That said, despite establishing Elphaba as a threat to Oz’s population, I can say that this film feels uneventful by the conclusion. Does this film have a beginning, middle, and end? Yes. But by the time the film is over, I had little attachment to any of the characters. Not Elphaba. Not Glinda. Not a single soul in the cast. This is a film that is supposed to cap off the story and instead of going out with an emotional bang, it closes things off with a dull whimper. I get that “Wicked” in essence paints the story told in “The Wizard of Oz” as an anti-Elphaba propaganda piece, but the way that the film showcases some of the events from “The Wizard of Oz” lacks something the classic tale had. Sure, “The Wizard of Oz” is a formulaic hero’s journey, but like a lot of formulaic hero’s journeys, it had stakes. As I watched parts of “Wicked: For Good,” I almost did not care about a single character in the cast. The film barely paints the Wizard as a threat, even if Elphaba most definitely sees him that way. The closest thing to an unforgivable act I can say he pulled off is him capturing a bunch of animals, which, okay, that is not something reasonable people do. Not to mention, such an action piggybacks off of material from the first film. But even that plot point feels like it barely gets any spotlight. It comes off as an afterthought.

Do things happen in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. Do characters develop in “Wicked: For Good?” Sure. We see some characters change more than others, but there is some character development to be had. That said, by the film’s conclusion, I felt like nothing really mattered that much. There was not much in the film that left a significant impact on me.

There is quite a bit in this film that I do not like. I did say there are plenty of positives, but I utter such a sentiment with as much generosity as I can provide. That said, if there is one reason why you should watch this movie, especially on the big screen, I think I might be able to pull one out of my sleeve. The soundtrack to “Wicked: For Good” is not as solid as the original. In fact, the parts of the soundtrack I found to be the most memorable are throwbacks to songs from the original movie. There are some good songs, but not anything on the level of say “Defying Gravity,” except for one number. That number being “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.” There are so many fantastic elements that make this sequence worth writing home about. I almost want to shout out Cynthia Erivo for her ability to carry a tune in this scene like it is nothing. But then I remember that this sequence contains some incredibly dazzling showcases of visual effects. And while I do think the film could have been improved from a color perspective, I thought the overall aesthetic of this scene was perfect at times. Despite a lot of pizzazz going on in the frame, several shots feel kind of dry and rugged. It kind of matched the tension of the film at the time. It came at one of this film’s closest moments to what somebody could call a tipping point. The soundwork in this scene is great, and this was most definitely a treat to hear in Dolby. After seeing these two “Wicked” films, I would be totally fine if I never had any chance to watch them a second time. But I will not lie, part of me could see myself going on YouTube and either watching this clip again for fun, or listening to this song through my headphones.

I have not seen the “Wicked” play. Yes, I know, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” is not a song that is original to this film’s soundtrack. That said, I like the way the song is utilized in this film. It satisfies both the eyes and ears. One thing I also like is that in the moments that follow, we have a crowd of people singing a similar sounding song called “March of the Witch Hunters” that changes the core lyrics ever so slightly. It is executed rather chillingly.

Speaking of singing, watching Jeff Goldblum try to sing in this movie is something else. Do not get me wrong, Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard, like many of his other roles, is charismatic. But the guy cannot sing. He can change your apartment, he can change the world, but he cannot sing. He tries. He puts some effort into his material, and even as he fails he still has a sense of star power. Although when the film has Goldblum singing, he comes off like a reserved, yet somewhat noticeably drunk dad who drags his family into the basement so he can try out his new karaoke machine for the first time. I love Jeff Goldblum, but this is not his best work. If I were to judge Goldblum for his performance in the first “Wicked” I would say his performance was perfectly acceptable. But when this movie asks him to sing, which is one of the most important parts of making a musical, that is where the corniness ensues.

In the end, the “Wicked” movies are 0 for 2. I do not mind musicals. I enjoy fantasy movies. To quote that one kid from “A Christmas Story,” “I like ‘The Wizard of Oz.'” If there is one adjective that I could use to describe these movies, it would be “consistent.” The films are consistently boring, consistently colorless, and consistently annoying. I never latched onto the universe that these two movies were trying to sell me. It has simply never once appealed to me. When I reviewed the first “Wicked,” I said it failed on the most important thing a part one is supposed to do, which is get me excited for this film, part two. Wait, sorry, I mean for “For Good…” The title card in the original says “Part One,” why does this one not say “Part Two?” Kind of weird. Anyway, now that I have seen “Wicked: For Good,” it fails at something of equal importance, which is getting me to care about the cast of characters. I like the actors in the film, and I think like the last movie, Ariana Grande easily gives the best performance. But their characters, like the story, rarely, if ever, engage me by the film’s conclusion. I am going to give “Wicked: For Good” a 4/10.

“Wicked: For Good” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Sentimental Value!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Zootopia 2,” “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” and “Bugonia.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked: For Good?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Wicked” movies is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Smurfs (2025): One of the Smurfing Worst Animated Movies Ever Made

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Smurfs” is directed by Chris Miller (Madagascar, Shrek the Third) and stars Rihanna (Home, Ocean’s 8), James Corden (The Emoji Movie, Cats), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), JP Karliak (X-Men ’97, New Looney Tunes), Daniel Levy (Schitt’s Creek, Happiest Season), Amy Sedaris (The Mandalorian, Clerks III), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Win Ben Stein’s Money), Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, Gifted), Nick Kroll (Big Mouth, Sausage Party), Hannah Waddingham (The Garfield Movie, Ted Lasso), Alex Winter (Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Grand Piano), Maya Erskine (PEN15, Blue Eye Samurai), Kurt Russell (The Thing, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2), and John Goodman (Revenge of the Nerds, The Big Lebowski). This film centers around its titular blue creatures who go on a mission to save Papa Smurf from evil wizards Razamel and Gargamel.

I hate using the term “kids movie,” mainly because it sounds like an insult towards certain people who watch those kinds of flicks. It is kind of like the term “chick flick,” as if a guy cannot watch films like “Easy A” and have a good time. That film is a blast, and I, a straight white male, fully endorse it. That said, having now seen “Smurfs,” I do not think it is a movie for anybody. Not even children.

This is not to suggest the film is inappropriate for kids. But if you were to ask me to recommend a movie for children, “Smurfs” would be the one I would recommend as a punishment. Forget the time out corner! Forget the extra chores! Forget the soap! Putting on “Smurfs” is the ultimate tool for any disciplinarian!

I saw “Smurfs” in a nearly full theater containing tons of families. Almost nobody uttered a sound during the film. Not the parents, not the children, no one. I actually chuckled once, but being the dark soul that I am, my chuckle was towards the fact that a particular character opted to sacrifice themself. One could argue that part of why I was laughing at this joke was that I wanted the characters to die so the movie could end.

It reminded me of “Borderlands” when Claptrap repeatedly gets shot. Spoiler alert, he ends up surviving! But at the time, that scene gave me a dose of optimism, because it hinted there was a chance that the film’s most annoying character could be left out of the picture.

In the case of “Smurfs,” my singular chuckle was not directed at the film’s most annoying character, but my point stands.

“Smurfs” is chock-full of well-known talent. You have Nick Offerman, John Goodman, Natasha Lyonne, Sandra Oh, even Kurt Russell! These are skilled actors, but there is not much for them to do in this film other than read some of the most predictable, unfunny lines in Hollywood movie history. There are a few lines in this film where I was trying to predict what line would succeed it, what joke would flourish as a result. It goes for the obvious joke time and time and time and time again. It is so annoying and makes for something absolutely uninspired. With these recently mentioned big name actors, you might wonder who has top billing. It is none of these people! Shocking, I know. Instead, that honor goes to Rihanna.

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures – © Paramount Pictures

I am not surprised that Rihanna has top billing. She has an impact on popular culture. That said, her music is not for me. I cannot name a single song of hers that I genuinely love. But this movie is Rihanna’s not just in the sense that she plays one of the core characters, but it is also hers through the music. Several of Rihanna’s hits make it into the soundtrack. If you are a fan of Rihanna, you will probably have more fun listening to these songs by themselves. That said, Rihanna does have an original song featured in the film, particularly during the credits, but at times, it is almost headache-inducing. By the end of this film, I truly wanted Rihanna, to “please, stop the flipping music.”

Paramount Animation/Paramount Animation – © Smurfs™ & © PEYO – 2025 Lic. Lafig B./IMPS © 2025 Par. Pics.

When it comes to finding a main character, it seems to clearly identify James Corden’s No Name Smurf (left) as the protagonist, but again, Rihanna’s Smurfette has such a notable presence to the point where she almost steals the spotlight. You might as well call this movie an 89 minute Rihanna music video featuring the Smurfs. I had trouble figuring out what this movie was trying to be. Is it a musical? Is it a comedy? Is it an adventure? Is it the latest attempt at the multiverse craze? The people behind the movie do not seem to know who exactly they are making it for. “Smurfs” is a family-friendly property, so the crew definitely had children in mind. Although one difference between “Smurfs” and another film from this year I frankly disliked, “A Minecraft Movie,” is that the kids at my screening seemed to be into it, whereas “Smurfs” was a misfire for all audiences, including yours truly.

If I had to pick a movie that “Smurfs” reminds me of, my immediate answer is “The Emoji Movie.” Will kids like this movie? Theoretically. Will adults like this movie? Probably not. Is it colorful and polished? Yes. Does have an everyday “nobody” protagonist? You betcha! Does it have generic sounding songs that have had their time on top 40 radio that get stuck in your head once you leave the theater? Absolutely! If you ever read my expletive-riddled review for “The Emoji Movie,” you may remember me comparing that pile of excrement to films like “The LEGO Movie,” “Wreck-it Ralph,” and “Inside Out,” suggesting that “The Emoji Movie” is a remix of those flicks, but significantly worse. “Smurfs” is basically a reskin of “The Emoji Movie.” Sadly, “The Emoji Movie” lingered so much in my mind that I could not think of any good films to compare “Smurfs” to while I was watching it. At one point, “The LEGO Movie” came to mind because No Name Smurf kind of reminded me of Emmet, whose standout quality is being incredibly pedestrian and everyday, but this film, arguably on purpose, felt like a spiritual sequel to “The Emoji Movie.”

Heck, James Corden is in both films! James Corden seems to be at the top of the list called “Actors to hire if you Have no faith in your project.” Between this film, “The Emoji Movie,” “Cats,” “Gulliver’s Travels,” “Superintelligence,” and “Cinderella,” Corden has built quite the resume of films that made me question my position as a movie person.

Did I mention that both movies reference arguably the most famous line from “Casablanca?” Because they do! And I would argue that “Smurfs” somehow trumps “The Emoji Movie” in terms of how poorly executed the delivery of that line was.

Yes, this movie has tons of stars in it. But they are all given a script that feels more akin to something that would go straight to Paramount+. I guarantee, if Rihanna, and perhaps some of these other actors were not in this film, this would be a streaming exclusive.

That said, there is one segment that I admire in this movie. Without spoilers, it involves a multiversal trip. I thought it was kind of creative. Unfortunately, it only lasts for a minute or two, and then the movie goes back to its regularly scheduled so-called programming. I could see this segment being something that one of the film’s animators would be proud to have on their demo reel. It is the greatest spark of creativity in what is ultimately a dumpster fire that lacks any and all imagination. The film is not consistent with its style. One moment it is fully animated. In another it is live-action. And there’s tons of weird blending between the two styles that sometimes make no sense whatsoever.

The film also reminded me of the equally unimaginative 2011 film “The Smurfs.” Not just because the film features the same characters, but the story beats are kind of similar because all the Smurfs end up leaving Smurf Village and end up in the real world. But perhaps more importantly, both films are not funny and absolutely boring! For an 89 minute movie to be boring is a true feat. It is one thing if the movie is two and a half-hours, but this movie flies at a TikTok pace and still manages to make me, and perhaps the children around me, want to fall asleep. The Smurfs in this movie may be blue, but by the time it was over, it had me turning red.

In the end, “Smurfs” is smurfing bad! It sounds like the obvious comment to make at this time, but if anything it is only fitting after watching this predictable 89 minute brain cell eradicator. “Smurfs” is easily the worst film I have seen so far this year. The film’s full of cringeworthy sequences that feel more like they are designed to show off Rihanna’s singing voice rather than tell a compelling narrative. The movie’s script is riddled with jokes that feel dated. And if they are not dated, they likely will be in five years. There is a sibling rivalry subplot between the film’s villains that ends up being a bore. The film surprisingly has enough time to introduce Kurt Russell’s character. By the time we got to his part of the film, my first thought was “Wait, now? Why are we doing this?” I like me some Kurt Russell, but his presence in the film feels out of the blue. No pun intended. If you want a good movie to take your child to, get tickets for “Elio” or if they’re a little older, take them to see “Superman.” I think the film will grab their attention, and possibly stick with them even as they get older. Do not waste your money on “Smurfs.” I am going to give “Smurfs” a 1/10.

You might make an argument that me not liking this film is irrelevant because it caters more towards children than it does adults. I do not know. I think the many silent children in my theater would have something to say to you. And also this brings up another thing, if the children in my theater, or other children who watched this film for that matter, did like it, I wonder what they will think of it in ten years. Will they feel the same way? Again, this is why I always bring up Pixar as animation’s current gold standard, because they are making films that refuse to insult children’s intelligence. Kids like them. Adults like them. Everyone likes them. Heck, I, a 25 year old man, watched “Cars” recently, which I first checked out when I was six years old. It is still worth watching as an adult. The film looks fantastic, features likable characters, and with my older age, I appreciated the film’s commentary on convenience and how that changes society. It did a great job at that by highlighting the unfortunate impact an Interstate had on the small town of Radiator Springs. Sure, “Smurfs” tries to implement a lesson about being yourself, but it feels surface level and is not enough to save the film from being dull and unfunny. Please avoid this movie at all costs, you will thank me later.

“Smurfs” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Courtesy of 1.21 – © 1.21

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror film, “Together.” Stay tuned! Also, I will eventually be sharing my thoughts on “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Smurfs?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the best piece of “Smurfs” media out there? I need to know because these recent movies do not seem to be doing it for me. If anyone has a recommendation, please send it my way. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

WARNING: Review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view.

“Wicked” is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) and stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Fellow Travelers, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater, Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Marissa Bode, Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones, Pixels), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Thor: Ragnarok). This film is based on a book that inspired a popular Broadway musical and centers around the connection between two students at Shiz University… A misunderstood green woman named Elphaba and a popular girl named Galinda.

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

“Wicked” is a property that I have heard by name for years. Obviously, I am familiar with some Oz stories, so I know that “Wicked” is connected to that universe. I have seen commercials on television promoting the play when it arrives in my local area. My earliest memory regarding the play has to do with one episode of “Deal or No Deal” I watched when I was 10 years old, when the contestant received an offer from the banker revolving around the play. But I cannot say I have seen the play, nor have I listened to the soundtrack. I have heard decent things about it, I know it is popular, I know people enjoy it. But I have never bothered to check it out. Safe to say, there is a first time for everything.

Perhaps the biggest movie phenomenon in terms of marketing in 2024 so far would have to be “Deadpool & Wolverine.” That film has pushed itself rather hard, gotten so many people looking forward to it, and gotten rather creative with its advertising leading up to its release. Though I say that with a supposed bias because I am definitely the target audience of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” “Wicked” on the other hand, not really. Like any genre, I can appreciate a great musical, but I would not say musicals are my first choice. Nevertheless, I am seeing more than enough promotion for “Wicked,” and I do not think I am alone in this. Though I will admit, like “Deadpool & Wolverine,” there are creative approaches I like regarding “Wicked’s” push. At AMC Theatres, where I usually flock to if I am seeing a movie, they made a reminder for audiences watching whatever film they paid for to follow the traditional rules of moviegoing. As this happens, Jeff Goldblum, who plays the Wizard in the film, says each rule, after which a completely fitting clip of “Wicked” plays.

In fact, this PSA played before my “Wicked” screening as well, which I saw at a Dolby Cinema auditorium at AMC. The video also comes with the rule, “NO SINGING,” which thankfully, my audience followed. Shoutout to my fellow moviegoers for maintaining a respectful atmosphere. But I could tell that I was part of a passionate crowd. There were some enthusiastic responses to certain parts of the film when they came up, I even remember seeing someone below me wearing a witch’s hat. I love when people embrace their inner fan. This is why I often go to conventions because I love those kinds of atmospheres.

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

Sadly, while “Wicked” clearly has fans, I cannot say I am one of them. I was not one before watching this movie, and I cannot say it turned me into one. This is genuinely one of the most middle of the road movies of the year. One can even argue it is disappointing. Because even as someone who was not the target audience, I could clearly see craftsmanship, love, and effort put into the picture. But there are also some things that have turned me off.

Once again, I am not the target audience for musicals, though I have enjoyed some. In recent years, I have raved about Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” remake time and time again. That said, the songs in this movie, while there are highlights, for the most part, did not really do anything for me. There are some tolerable pieces like “No One Mourns the Wicked,” “Popular,” and of course, “Defying Gravity.” But for the most part, the movie failed to impress me. I thought from the concept, the marketing, and the fantastical universe in which this movie was going to be set, we would get an incredibly vibrant film, but that is not the case.

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

When it comes to the color palette, that is a spot where “Wicked” falters. The color grading in this film feels pale and wooden for a place that is clearly supposed to be otherworldly. If anything, it kind of looks like a rushed Marvel movie. Do not get me wrong, I love my Marvel movies. But there are a couple titles I where I think the color grading should have been cleaned up a little bit. It looks kind of empty. That said, the film’s look is not all bad. The production design feels grand and epic at times. Oz looks great. The interiors look great. There’s a shot early on showing a massive field of flowers that captivated me. That also leads me to say that I like the film’s camerawork. The framing feels wide and vast, trying to fit as much information as possible from one side of the screen to the other. This film is shot by Alex Brooks, who is no stranger to shooting musicals. In 2021, she shot “Tick, Tick…BOOM!,” which I adored. Months before that movie came out, she was credited for the less enjoyable but still fun “In the Heights,” also directed by Jon M. Chu. Brooks has a good eye for framing and definitely knows how to make shots feel grand, even if there are other aspects that drag such grandeur down.

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

Although if I had to name my favorite aspects of the film, there are two that come to mind… The leads. The entire film revolves around the relationship between Elphaba and Galinda. Thankfully, this movie casts both of these parts perfectly. For Elphaba, you have Cynthia Erivo, who not only plays her part well, capturing the uniqueness of her character that goes far beyond her looks, but boy can she sing. There is a lot of singing in this film, and admittedly, some of the singing in this film, particularly from multiple characters, sometimes feels out of place. Though it is not “Joker: Folie à Deux” bad. Some of it just feels tacked on if anything. I imagine some would say all of the singing in the film has a point. From my point of view, maybe it fits better on Broadway. I do not know. There are a lot of scenes within the context of a musical that I happened to buy. But there are other songs that either feel slapped together almost unnecessarily, or just plain annoying. But thankfully, Erivo sings all of her songs well, and the same can be said for Ariana Grande, who practically steals every scene she is in. She plays the popular girl type to a tee. She is fantastic. Dare I even say Oscar-worthy. I hope she gets a nomination. Whether it will be for Best Lead Actress or Supporting Actress we will have to see. I know Universal probably does not want Erivo and Grande competing against each other for the same award. The Golden Globe nominees just came out and both performers are in different categories. Even so, Grande is a knockout. There is an otherworldliness to her character that I bought into. She is funny, charming, and perhaps gives one of the best physical performances of the year. There are plenty of other actors in this film that play their individual parts well. I thought Jeff Goldblum was a great choice to play Oz. Michelle Yeoh is commanding as Madame Morrible, and Jonathan Bailey does a good job playing Fiyero Tigelaar.

As said earlier this review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view… This where is where we get into those potential spoilers. You have been warned.

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

Kind of like “Dune,” there is one thing “Wicked” hides in its marketing that I would have never gathered from trailers and ads alone. I knew about this before going into the film, because other people dropped the news beforehand. But for those who do not know, “Wicked” is a part one. Early on in the film, the title card of this movie shows up, we see “WICKED” in huge letters, and shortly after, the words “PART 1” shows up. And BOY does this movie feel like a first half of a two part story. You can say the same for “Dune,” a movie that for the record, I happen to fall within the target audience… My point is, I feel like “Dune” does a good job at not only getting me invested in a universe that aesthetically leaps off the screen ten times better than this one does. But I care more about the journey our lead character goes on. In fact, we see him during the start of the film in a certain way, and he fully develops as a character, giving a solid end to his arc in the story. There are questions regarding the character that are left unanswered, but I am intrigued enough to find out how things would unfold in a future chapter. Elphaba develops somewhat in this film, but her development feels slightly incomplete. “Dune,” despite being a book split in half, comes off as a full story. At least to me it does. I would not be surprised if some people disagree. It leaves the audience with questions. But as far as Paul Atreides is concerned, I think the movie gives him a solid progression. It left me knowing enough about the world of Arrakis. It left me knowing enough about Atreides. It left me wanting more. I left “Wicked” feeling as if I was watching an unfinished story that barely kept me awake. I remember last year when “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” came out. Like “Dune,” I happen to be in the target audience for that film too. I loved the movie, and I could tell that like “Wicked,” it was made with love. But also like “Wicked,” if I had a complaint about the film, it definitely feels like a setup movie at times. It is a great setup movie. But there is a reason despite me giving the film a 10/10 for its many positives during my review, I ended up sliding it down a spot on my Top 10 BEST Movies of 2023 list, where “Godzilla Minus One” just so happened to be my number one pick for the year.

Sticking with “Across the Spider-Verse,” I enjoyed all the characters, the animation, the production value, everything that particular movie had to offer. They do way more than enough to make the part one worthwhile. As for “Wicked,” there are decent characters but they are in an off and on story. The world is not as interesting as I hoped it would be. A few songs are okay, but I cannot say I am raving about them. In fact, some of the song sequences gave me a headache. Part of it may do with me seeing the movie in Dolby, but still. If I were to watch the movie a second time either at home or in a regular theater, hopefully that does not happen again. The pacing of this movie is as slow as snail. The movie is two hours and forty minutes long. It honestly almost feels like three or even longer. I found myself rather invested in the second half at times, but the first half? I found myself wanting to fall asleep. But I could not do that, because I was in a Dolby Cinema, and the songs were so loud they were giving me a headache!

As the film was ending, I will be real, despite my many negatives, I was rather riveted by Erivo’s take on Defying Gravity. This is not a song I would listen to on my own time, but within the context of the story, she puts on a good show. There is also, again, really good camerawork in this sequence. There are a couple shots that are so immersive you feel like Erivo is singing right in your face. For many people, I would imagine this would be the reason why the movie is worth seeing. Unfortunately for me, I was immensely tired after the first half to the point where the movie barely redeemed itself by the conclusion. This was a good sequence. I just wish it were in a movie that had more of my attention.

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

In the end, I left “Wicked” rather unfulfilled. I will remind everyone, this is a part one. Unfortunately, this film failed on an important objective, which is getting me excited for part two. I am probably going to see it, because I know a lot of people will be talking about it. But if I were not reviewing movies, chances are I might skip it unless someone I know invited me to see it as their plus one. Again, I am not the target audience for this movie. It was likely made for someone who was not me. But the same can be said about other movies I reviewed like “Barbie,” “On the Basis of Sex,” and “Hope Gap.” I liked all of those movies! I cannot say the same about this one. If you like “Wicked,” good for you. I am glad you had fun. But I found the soundtrack to be mediocre, the overall look of the film to be slightly unappealing, and the world to lack my overall investment. I have to give credit to certain groups in this movie. A lot of the actors do a good job. The costumes are really nice. The sets definitely have effort put into them. This movie comes with plenty of good, but I nevertheless found an equal amount of bad. You could even say there are things that make “Wicked” watchable, but it is done in a package that failed to win me over. I like Jon M. Chu as a director, and when it comes to unleashing good performances out of his cast, that is where he excels here. But when it comes to creating an enjoyable musical atmosphere, I think he does better job with that with “In the Heights.” I do not love “In the Heights,” but I think it is a slightly better film than “Wicked.” If someone were in the room with me and they put it in on, I would not leave. I would watch it again. As is the case “Killers of the Flower Moon” last year and “Elvis” the year before that, “Wicked” is probably going to be a huge awards contender. But like those two other films, I am definitely in the minority with my negative opinion when it comes to “Wicked.” I mean, I liked the movie more than “Challengers…” Go ahead, punch me in the face. I do not care. I said what I said. All I can do is give my honest opinion. I am going to give “Wicked” a 5/10.

One last thing I want to bring up… I do not know if this was a studio choice or a directorial intention or if this was just my screening, but I want to know if anyone else experienced this. When I saw this film for the first time, I noticed that there was a tint attached in my presentation that was pink and green. It stayed that way during the entire film. You might think I am just seeing things because those are the two consistent colors throughout the picture. Although I must point out that this tint was also present during the trailers. When the MPA warning flashed, I noticed hints of pink in the font. I am not sure what the purpose of that was, but it was kind of distracting. Did anyone else see that too or was it just me?

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

Thanks for reading this review! By the way, a lot of people appear to be seeing “Wicked” as part of a double feature with another film, “Gladiator II.” Be sure to check out my review for that movie as well! Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wicked?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your most unpopular movie opinion regarding this year in cinema? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024): An Unnecessary, Overpriced, Frustrating Sequel That Falls Flat On Its Face

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.

Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.

I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”

There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.

I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.

It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.

I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.

Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.

You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.

Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.

But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.

Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.

For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.

There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.

The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.

For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.

This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.

In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” 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 “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wonka (2023): A Sweet But Tired Prequel Whose Strength Comes from Old Tricks

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wonka” is directed by Paul King (Paddington, Space Force) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Call Me by Your Name), Calah Lane (This Is Us, Kidding), Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Paterson Joseph (Timeless, Peep Show), Matt Lucas (Come Fly with Me, Little Britain), Matthew Baynton (Ghosts, The Split), Sally Hawkins (Godzilla, The Shape of Water), Rowan Atkinson (Johnny English, The Lion King), Jim Carter (The Good Liar, Downton Abbey), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), and Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Joneses Diary). This film is about a young Willy Wonka who tries to open a chocolate shop in the hopes of making his dreams a successful reality. He must also deal with the greed of a chocolate cartel that looms over him.

I absolutely adore “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” When I was seven years old, I would watch that film almost every other night. I was equally as fascinated by some of Roald Dahl’s books, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” included. And if you all must know, I did watch the Tim Burton “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and while many of you will probably spew pitchforks at me, I do not just like the film, I kind of love it. It is simmered with the dark vibes of Wonka himself in every scene. Danny Elfman’s score is a banger. I really liked Freddie Highmore as Charlie. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka leaves a little to be desired though, that’s the one big downside. Both films, especially the latter, make me want to stuff my face in chocolate. That’s how good those films are.

Thus far, we have had a couple of “Wonka” features that I tended to enjoy, so when I heard they were doing this new one with Timothée Chalamet, I was onboard. He is one of the best young talents working today. He has range. He has a natural look to him. So I was curious to see what he can do in a film like this. The great news is that Chalamet slays in his performance. As far as the Wonka character goes, he is significantly better than Johnny Depp. He is no Gene Wilder, but one thing to note about these two roles is that they are basically interconnected. This is set long before the events of the original “Chocolate Factory” story and the film does a decent job at making these two interpretations interlink. They don’t feel like the exact same character, but when it comes to a bridge in the gap between these two, it is filled exquisitely. Chalamet’s take on Willy Wonka matches his younger age, upbeat personality, and the dreams that clog his mind. Both Wonkas emit a sense of wonder and joy in their mannerisms, but as I watch Chalamet’s take and think about him, he seems to have more of a heart and significantly more patience than Wilder’s. Credit is due to Paul King as well for his stellar direction, as it felt not only distinctive, but effective enough to allow Chalamet to bring one of the year’s better performances.

Unfortunately, the film is not all pure imagination. In fact, the best parts of the movie to me, are mostly those in reference to nostalgia or things that came before in say “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Pretty much everything that is new feels like a far cry.

Much like “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” “Wonka” is a musical. And there are callbacks to songs from the 1971 classic. The highlight of the film for me is the new take on the Oompa Loompa songs. They have new lyrics, new visuals, the whole nine yards. I thought those were well done, and it also helps that Hugh Grant sells the Oompa Loompa character to a tee.

The Hugh Grant Oompa Loompa might be my favorite character in the movie partially because of how Grant voices him. There is a certain snark factor to this character that I immediately welcomed. He also allowed for one of the better gags in the film during the second half. It is in the trailer, but having seen it in the film, it worked for me.

But with that Oompa Loompa bit aside, most of the musical numbers in this movie are some of the most forgettable and bland I have seen in ages. These are some of the most uninteresting musical numbers I have come across since 2021’s “Dear Evan Hansen.” As a movie, I liked “Wonka” better, but as a musical, this movie fails. Sure, there are rhymy timey lyrics, a lot of excuses for spectacles, all that jazz. That is what I come to expect in many musicals. But it is not a matter of it being in the movie, it is how it is done in the movie. I just wish the musical bits could have been done a little better.

The best way to describe “Wonka” to someone who has not seen the movie is that it is basically a Saturday morning cartoon come to life. Given the family friendly nature of the film and the musical aspect, that should not come as a surprise. In fact, Roald Dahl’s work, which this film is inspired by, has a very animated feel to it. Unfortunately though, if I were seven years old, I do not think I would be as transfixed by “Wonka” as I would hope to be. Maybe it would be one of those movies like “Attack of the Clones” that I like as a kid but grow up to realize it is not as good as I thought it was. To be honest, it is quite bland, it is a little boring at times. In fact, much like “Dear Evan Hansen,” I feel like the movie forces itself to be a musical at moments where it is better off staying closer to reality.

Sticking with the cartoony vibes, the antagonists of the film, specifically the chocolate cartel, feel rather mustache twirly. The movie does a terrible job at making these three look intimidating. The movie asks me to see them as bad people. And yes, objectively they are, but it is a matter of execution. There is almost no word I could use to describe this cartel other than unamusing. If anything, going back to the idea of “Wonka” basically being a live action cartoon, I theorize this film would be a lot better if they just went for the cartoon route and just animated it from start to finish. Heck, the musical scenes would pop more. The characters would come off as more appealing. In fact, many of the supporting characters like Bleacher (Tom Davis) and Mrs. Scrubbit (Olivia Colman) feel like they would lend themselves better to that style. If I had my way, I almost would want to see a 2D style animated movie set in this universe. I could imagine enormous potential with that concept. Unfortunately though, I don’t know how it would do at the box office, it would probably be a lot harder to market. But if word of mouth is good, maybe it would be worthwhile.

But if I have to be honest, the dialogue is unmemorable, the humor is metza metza, and the only performances in the movie I am going to fondly remember just so happen to be Timothee Chalamet as Willy Wonka and Calah Lane’s charming portrayal of Noodle. Both of those actors are the highlights of the film. They don’t always have the best chemistry, but going back to the dialogue, I am sure if I liked the dialogue better, maybe their chemistry would have worked better. Both actors seem to have done their best with the material handed to them. And as far as I am concerned, I have done my best on getting through this movie to call it one of the most average watches of the year.

In the end, “Wonka” was quite disappointing. The “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” property was a big part of my childhood. Unfortunately this latest addition to it is nowhere near as magical or scrumdiddlyumptious. When I watched the 1971 and 2005 Roald Dahl book adaptations, it made me want to eat chocolate afterwards. I was a kid in a candy store. This latest prequel made me feel like an old man getting ready for my latest shouting event directed at a cloud. Paul King likely put his heart and soul into this project, but it unfortunately resulted in something that was poorly paced, uneven, and barely watchable. There are better movies to watch at the cinema this holiday season, or you can just stay at home and watch the other films this property has delivered over the years. I would recommend those over this one. I am going to give “Wonka” a 5/10.

Also, we have had two adaptations of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” some other random takes on the property over the years, this prequel, and yet I have not seen a single “Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator” movie. Life is funny, isn’t it? Then again, having read both the “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” books, the original appears more cinematic as it progresses, but that’s probably just the way I see it for now.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Illumination’s “Migration.” Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “Poor Things.” 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 “Wonka?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Willy Wonka” or “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dicks: The Musical (2023): A24’s First Musical Delivers the Goods

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dicks: The Musical” is directed by Larry Charles (Bruno, Curb Your Enthusiasm) and stars Megan Mullally (Will & Grace, Bob’s Burgers), Megan Thee Stallion (She-Hulk: Attorney at Law, Legendary), Bowen Yang (Saturday Night Live, Awkwafina is Nora from Queens), Nathan Lane (The Lion King, Stuart Little), Aaron Jackson (The Chris Gethard Show: Public Access, National Lampoon Radio Hour), and Josh Sharp (Jared & Ivanka, Search Party). This film is based on an off-Broadway musical titled “F*cking Identical Twins” and is about two business rivals who come to realization that they are long lost twin brothers. In an attempt to bring their divorced parents back together, they decide to swap places and disguise themselves as the other.

I have been curious about “Dicks: The Musical” ever since I first watched the trailer in August. I am not the biggest musical guy, but I have long been an A24 guy. They are not always consistent in quality, but that is a part of the young distributor’s charm. They always distribute content that has an identity of its own and would tend to carry certain notable qualities about it. Even when I end up hating a film of theirs like “Zola” or “The Whale,” there is still a specialty to those pictures. They always feel distinguished, individualistic, and polished no matter the budget.

In the case of “Dicks: The Musical,” the budget is $12 million. Not the most expensive movie, but it is one that uses its money wisely. Because every frame is packed with joyous splendor. From start to finish, I had a ball of a time with “Dicks: The Musical.” What sells the movie hardest is its marvelous cast who just so happen to play each role to the best of their ability, all to the point where I cannot imagine anybody else in their shoes. This is a film that refuses to take itself seriously. On it’s surface, this movie is like “The Parent Trap,” but different. In terms of recent movies, “Dicks: The Musical” kind of reminded me of “Bottoms,” because it is set in a universe that packs in various similarities to our own, but it is also one that feels like an enhancement of everyday life. Granted, it is a musical, which is not the most everyday feeling genre, so it only makes sense. And thankfully, as a musical, this movie works perfectly. All the songs are properly placed, well choreographed, well sung, and make sense within the context of the story. I am not going to pretend I am going to buy the soundtrack for this film, but the music accompanies everything else the film has to offer nicely.

That said, again, the film is budgeted at $12 million. When compared to recent musicals like “La La Land,” “Tick, Tick…BOOM!,” and Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” adaptation, it is significantly cheap. Despite my comments for the choreography and the songs, the budget does show at times when you consider everything put on screen. There may be occasional extravagance here and there, but that comes with infinite camp. Within all the pizzazz, there is a continued slight sense of humility.

The lead twins are played by Aaron Jackson and Josh Sharp. I have not known these names by any chance, but this movie could put them on the map. At least for me. Because it took me a bit to find out that not only is this movie based on something else… That something else just so happens to be a play in which they created and starred. Both of these men are stacked with talent and make for a perfect pair. I buy them as rivals, and I also buy them as brothers. I know this is probably a weird comparison to make, but they kind of remind me of the Smosh duo. Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox. Their chemistry is always on point and they both consistently deliver high energy in addition to humor.

My favorite characters of the film have to be the twins’ parents. They have the best lines, the best quirks, the best backstories, and on top of that, their costumes and looks match the feel of the film. They look just as kooky as the vibe of this picture. They look like they fit the style and match the attire of a higher-up at Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. The parents outfits pop just as much as their voices. Both talking and singing for that matter. I did not expect to be as invested in this film’s plot as I turned out to be. When a particular bombshell is revealed about Evelyn (Mullally) early on in the film, I was very curious as to where things would go from here. I was kind of expecting the big obstacle of the movie to be that these two people don’t really feel anything for each other the way they once did. While that idea is noticeable throughout the script, there is more to their disconnect than meets the eye. And some of it, particularly regarding Evelyn’s bombshell, is wonderfully ridiculous.

My biggest surprise of the film would have to be Megan Thee Stallion. I thought she was really good here. I don’t listen to her music, though I have heard her sing before on “Saturday Night Live,” I thought she stood out. And while “Dicks: The Musical” is not her first acting gig, she is not the first person I would think of casting in a film if I were to make one. I did see her guest appearance in “She-Hulk: Attorney at Law” as herself, but even with her limited role, I thought she was a tad stiff. To my pleasant surprise, she is a lot better here. I do not know what her future is as an actor, though I do see she has an upcoming film with Adam Sandler and the Safdie Brothers in the works. That said, I thought she was a fine choice to play the character of Gloria. She is dynamic, has tons of personality, and of course, because it is a musical, she has a chance to unleash a proper singing voice.

I do not know when would be the next time I would plan on sitting down and watching “Dicks: The Musical.” I have seen much better entries to this genre that have more replay value. Heck, going back to Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story,” I ended up seeing it twice in theaters and I also rewatched it on 4K Blu-ray. If I had any other gripes with the film, it would be that the comedy, while funny, never reaches a level where I am rolling on the floor. It is worthy of chuckles, but maybe not death-inducing laughter. Even so, I found the movie to be funny. I found it to be joy-filled. I found it to have a ton of character. It has the vivid nature of a Wes Anderson movie with the ridiculousness of, apologies if this is too recent, but I think it is a fine example, “Bottoms.” It is energetic, fast, and delivers a happy go lucky, stupid good time.

In the end, “Dicks: The Musical” gets my recommendation if you are looking for something quick and fun to watch. And I do mean it, the movie is quick. Not only is it tightly paced, but the runtime is 86 minutes. If you want to watch something neat without having to kill a ton of time, “Dicks: The Musical” is a nice choice. I have seen better comedies. I have seen better musicals. But even so, “Dicks: The Musical” handles both genres respectably. This is A24’s first musical, and I doubt it is their last. And if it is not their last, I doubt this is their best. But if you make the choice to check it out, you are not doing yourself any disservice. It is a good movie, give it a watch sometime. I am going to give “Dicks: The Musical” a 7/10.

“Dicks: The Musical” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! There are plenty more where that came from! If you missed out on my Ridley Scottober event, you are in luck! Because if you click any of the following links, you can check out my reviews for “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” “All the Money in the World,” and “Blade Runner!” Check them out! My next review is going to be for Martin Scorsese’s latest piece of cinema, “Killers of the Flower Moon!” Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Freelance,” “The Persian Version,” “Priscilla,” and “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes!” 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 “Dicks: The Musical?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite A24 film? At the risk of sounding too mainstream, I gotta go with “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” Let me know down your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

West Side Story (2021): Steven Spielberg Reinvents the Musical Genre Through This Compelling Adaptation

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the final installment of Steven Spielberg Month! You know what that means? It is time for shameless self-promotion! If you are interested in checking out more of my Steven Spielberg-related reviews for the month, this is your opportunity to read up on my thoughts regarding “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” and “The Post.” With that out of the way, it is time to introduce the last review of the themed event. It is one of Spielberg’s most recent outings, “West Side Story.” I would have reviewed this film last year if I had the time to. Unfortunately, I could not make it happen. Although I am glad to finally be able to give myself an opportunity to release my thoughts on it, and for you to finally find them out. Ladies and gentlemen, here is my review of “West Side Story.”

“West Side Story” is directed by Steven Spielberg (Lincoln, Ready Player One) and is based on a 1957 play by Jerome Robbins. The film stars Ansel Elgort, Ariana DeBose, David Alvarez, Mike Faist, Rita Moreno, and Rachel Zegler as Maria, a young Puerto Rican girl who falls in love with New York native Tony (Elgort). These two are caught in the middle of rivaling gangs, conflicting sides, and altering identities. While these two may be star-crossed, the turmoil beyond their relationship heats up.

I saw this movie on December 6th, 2021 during a free IMAX fan event screening in Boston. The screening took place days before the film’s wide release. This was my first time seeing anything related to “West Side Story.” Prior to rewatching this film for review purposes, not to mention after, I still have not watched the 1961 “West Side Story” adaptation, despite its acclaim. The film won ten Oscars, including Best Picture. In recent months, Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” sort of followed in its footsteps. The 2021 remake won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in addition to earning other categorical nominations. One such nomination was Best Picture, which the film lost to “CODA,” which I have no problem with as that film was brilliant.

Having rewatched “West Side Story,” it honestly was more fun than it was the first time around. And that says something because that first viewing was a great time. Did I mention that my most recent watch of the film is not my second, but my third time? I went to go see the film in theaters twice, and both times it knocked my socks off. Therefore, it should be no surprise that I am handing the film this much praise.

I am so glad to finally get to talk about “West Side Story” after being busy during the tail end of 2021, partially because it is my favorite musical movie of that year. I had fun with “In the Heights” and I admired “Tick, Tick… BOOM!”, but “West Side Story” takes the cake as the most serotonin-emitting of these films. When I first heard about a remake for “West Side Story,” I had mixed thoughts, and slight indifference as I had not seen the original film. When you announce that you are about to remake something iconic or highly acclaimed as this, it begs the question as to how you can make something that is on par with what the prior material provided. Again, I did not see the 1961 movie, so I cannot compare and contrast these two films together. Although as a standalone movie, “West Side Story” 2021 is one of the most finely crafted creations of the decade thus far. The decade has only started, but if things continue to go in a certain direction, “West Side Story” could end up in my top 50, maybe even top 25 films of the 2020s by the time the ten year span ends.

The cast of “West Side Story” could not be better. Every actor is perfectly placed in their role, they feel at home, and they play their part to the best of their ability. Rachel Zegler is a goldmine of adorableness as Maria. Not only is Zegler a ridiculously talented singer, which is an ability that is somewhat expected in a film like this, but she is also unspeakably beautiful. Every time I glance at Zegler in this movie, I can sense that not only is Zegler happy to be in the movie, I can sense her character is always in the moment. Even during an occasional sense of hardship, every time I look at Rachel, I am, assumingly, as happy as her. She is always either upbeat or expressive, which for a musical, is an appropriate set of emotions. Part of the recently mentioned adorableness not only has to do with Rachel Zegler herself, her character, or her acting ability, but also the costume design.

The costumes in this film are designed by Paul Tazewell, who also designed costumes for the musical “Hamilton.” Tazewell’s designs feel straight out of the 1950s. To go along with the extravagant, larger than life feel of a story like this, some of the costumes feel attractively glitzy. Again, Zegler’s costumes, such as her white dress from the first act, are standouts. All the costumes from the dance in the gym are easy on the eyes. Another one of my favorites is Anita’s yellow outfit that she wears during the “America” scene. It goes well with the atmosphere and the time of day. Everything feels intricately planned.

Speaking of Ariana DeBose, she and Zegler pretty much tie for the greatest performance in the film. DeBose won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance as Anita, which is undoubtedly deserved. Everything from her physicality to her line delivery to her overall charisma makes for one of the best performances I have ever seen in musical film. The past couple times I watched “West Side Story,” every line out of DeBose’s mouth, even minor ones, made me smile. There is a saying about movies providing escapes for audiences. Anita in “West Side Story” is synonymous with such a philosophy. Every time she spoke, I instantly transported to another world. I am going to continuously debate as to whether Zegler or DeBose gave my favorite performance in the film, but as far as non-lead roles go, DeBose may have given the greatest of them all in 2021.

Despite having story in its name, the story of “West Side Story” is not the most original when you break it down. Not just because it is remaking a 1961 movie based on a 1957 play. If anything it is a spin on the “Romeo and Juliet” formula with different characters and dance fighting. If anything, this latest iteration of the musical is a fantastic spin, and even saying that is arguably an understatement. As I have said before, you can always supply a cliché story, or a story that has been done in the past. What matters is the execution. If you deliver something great with familiar elements, then job well done. This is exactly what Steven Spielberg did, I was on the edge of my seat during scenes that could have potentially come off as goofy. Dance fighting is a concept that to my surprise, successfully highlighted much of the tension between characters. Not only that, but the music used as a backdrop sounded great. It kept my attention.

This movie is shot by Janusz Kaminski, a brilliant cinematographer who has worked with Spielberg for years. The wides in this film are beautiful. The opening sequence is one of the most intriguing of the year based on the camera movements alone. The scope of the film would not be as massive if it were not for some of Kaminski’s long takes. One of my favorite shots of the film is when we get into the gymnasium and see everyone dancing. The camera swoops around the entire place non-stop until we arrive on our core characters like Anita, Bernardo, and Rachel. Looking back on it and what that one moment was able to capture, is jaw-dropping to say the least. Also, if you ever watch the scene, note the use of color. There is a sense of consistency between the colors of various outfits throughout the shot. It almost comes off like a painting. Again, credit goes to Paul Tazewell for how well he handled the film’s costume design.

Musicals, including this one, often thrive based on the spectacle. “West Side Story” has a ton of poppy moments where the cinematography and musical numbers keep my eyes on the screen. That is despite there being a sense of danger throughout the movie. “West Side Story,” at its core, centers around two star-crossed lovers. Although this film effectively encapsulates how their connection affects the people around them. The rivalry between the Jets and Sharks was already heading for trouble, but as soon as we see Rachel and Tony together for the first time, we also begin to see how various supporting characters handle this matter. Even though it should barely affect them on paper, it ends up resulting in increased calamity. As for said calamity, it made for a great movie.

If you ask me, based on everything I presented so far from the costumes to the shot selection to the editing to the acting, this is a sign that Steven Spielberg has brought together one of the greatest directorial efforts of his career. Or, as some might call it, just another Tuesday. “West Side Story” is apparently a part of Spielberg’s childhood, and it shows. The numbers are handled with grace, the characters are well realized, and the aesthetic of the film has a perfect blend between lighter and darker moments in addition to tones. There is no surprise that a sense of passion was present in every scene.

Aside from the cliché elements and familiar story treads, there are not many noticeable flaws with “West Side Story.” This might not be my favorite Steven Spielberg movie, but I cannot help but recognize how massively bonkers and fun this movie is. At the same time, it also successfully hits emotional beats. Performances from Rachel Zegler and Ariana DeBose highlight this. One of my favorite elements of the film, as someone who watched it perhaps the way Spielberg intended, is that when the characters speak in Spanish, they do not provide subtitles to aid in regard to what they are saying. I have taken a screenwriting class in college, and one thing my professor noted is that dialogue does not always matter. Sure, movies can have great lines that enhance the experience. Whether they are funny, dramatic, or emotionally charging. Although what makes “West Side Story” great is its tendency to use Spanish, a language which I do not understand, without subtitles, and nevertheless compel me into the scenes in which such a language is spoken. Given select moments and the supposed attitudes of various audiences, this sounds like a big risk. As someone who dropped out of Spanish class in high school for Sociology, I have been moved by this choice and its execution.

Big risk, big reward.

One might as well make the conclusion that this is what the whole movie sounded like from the beginning. A big risk. Sure, when you have Steven Spielberg in the chair, he makes everything look easy. Sure, name recognition is definitely a selling point in modern media. The film did not do well at the box office for various reasons. COVID-19, competition with other movies, and controversy with Ansel Elgort are contributing factors. However, this film is now available to watch at home and if you ask me what movie in the musical genre you should watch nowadays, this is one of the first I can think at the top of my head. It is that good. I do not know if Spielberg will make another musical, but if he does, I wonder how the heck he could top this one.

In the end, “West Side Story” is one of the best musical films of this century. Why should I be surprised that this movie is as solid as it is? Steven Spielberg is at the helm. Then again, maybe I should be surprised. After his many previous monumental successes, Spielberg has yet to create a film in the musical genre. He has done a variety of genres prior to “West Side Story” like science fiction (Close Encounters of the Third Kind), period pieces (Lincoln), adventure (Raiders of the Lost Ark), war (Saving Private Ryan), drama (The Post), and you could even argue that “Jaws” would be considered a horror film. By today’s standards, it is not the most terrifying option on the table, but it has its eerie moments. The man has done everything, and yet he continues to pump out gold. For some filmmakers, this would be an achievement. But I cannot call it that for Spielberg after watching “West Side Story.” As far as Spielberg is concerned, his efforts have amounted to another day at the office. That is how effective of a filmmaker he continues to be. Spielberg could have ended his career at say “Jurassic Park” and have an endlessly celebrated library of films. But that is not the case. His adaptations of songs like “Somewhere,” “Cool,” and “America” have stayed in my memory for a long time, and will likely continue to do so. The look of the film is stunning, the shots are beautiful, and the cast is incredible. Again, I have yet to see the 1961 film, so I cannot confirm if this is better or worse, but I can hardly think of a single problem I have with Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” So much so, that the film is worthy of a 10/10.

Musicals are not my genre, but this is a film that I liked the first time, adored the second time, and found myself eating up by the third time. I am floored by this film’s craft and how extravagantly immersive it is, even when watching it at home. I feel bad for skipping this review last year, but I am more than happy to have gotten my thoughts out by now. Although some of you reading this might not be that surprised that I liked the movie so much, because I ended up nominating it in a few categories during the 4th Annual Jackoff Awards. If you want to see what the film did or did not win, check out the post!

“West Side Story” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available to rent or buy on VOD. For those who have the services, it is also available to watch on Disney+ and HBO Max.

Thanks for reading this review! This is officially the end of Steven Spielberg Month! But this November, we will be seeing the latest addition to Spielberg’s neverending library. That my friends, is “The Fabelmans.” The film is loosely based on Spielberg’s childhood, and the trailer looks phenomenal. Between this and Damien Chazelle’s “Babylon,” this awards season is likely going to have lots of talk about Hollywood’s self-indulgence. Whether such self-indulgence will be successfully utilized, is a question waiting to be answered.

Also, my next review is going to be for the all DC film “Black Adam.” Be sure to stay tuned for the nine-millionth superhero movie I will be reviewing in my blogging journey. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “West Side Story?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see the 1961 “West Side Story?” What did you think of that? How would you compare the two movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Tick, Tick…Boom! (2021): Andrew Garfield Booms the Roof Off in This Marvelous Netflix Original

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Tick, Tick…Boom!” is directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Hamilton, Mary Poppins Returns) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Amazing Spider-Man, Hacksaw Ridge), Alexandra Shipp (Aaliyah: The Princess of R&B, Straight Outta Compton), Robin de Jesús (The Boys in the Band, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), Joshua Henry, Judith Light (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Dallas), and Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical, Powerless). This film is about Jonathan Larson, a young musical composer who lives in New York and is trying to make it big. When trying to assemble and sell his play, Larson must simultaneously balance work, friendships, and trying to create the art he wants people to see.

I feel like such an idiot because I have spent much of the 2010s hearing about “Hamilton,” while everyone talks about it, makes such a big deal about it. “Go watch ‘Hamilton!'” “Go listen to ‘Hamilton!'” “I cannot stop talking about ‘Hamilton!'” I have never bothered with it. I am sure that if I put on a song from “Hamilton,” I’ll find some fun in it. Heck, they even have the recorded version of it on Disney+ right now so it is at my fingertips. But I know that “Hamilton” is part of the reason why everyone knows Lin-Manuel Miranda as one of this generation’s most iconic entertainers. I am all for any story that makes history fun. I just haven’t gotten around to it.

I did however watch this year’s “In the Heights” film which I left feeling very mixed about. On one hand, there are some occasional catchy tunes and some of my favorite shots of the year. There’s one scene towards the end of the film that left me marveled to the floor. At the same time though, the film is rather dense for a somewhat fun musical and goes on for way too long. I did not mind any of the serious matters in it, I just don’t think it is a film that is worth watching more than once.

Either way, Lin-Manuel Miranda is an entertainer that I have known about for years, but for some reason, I have never gotten around to his work. To be fair, I watch a ton of movies. I don’t always seek out plays or Broadway musicals. Those just aren’t my thing. That seems to be Lin-Manuel Miranda’s forte. But this film is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s feature length debut. Could he take his talents which he used elsewhere and translate them to a project like this? After seeing this film, I can confirm he did.

Miranda develops a movie that sort of made me forget that I was watching a true story. Granted, I did not see a ton of marketing and did not hear much about the film going into it, so I didn’t really know I was watching a film based on actual events. But after realizing that this film was based on real events and watching the film itself, it nevertheless kind of felt like a fantasy. Almost like “Rocketman” in a way, but better. Miranda takes the script of “Tick, Tick…Boom!,” which is very much set in reality, and makes it feel like it set in some blend between that and some fantasy world. “Tick, Tick…Boom!” naturally delivers a compelling narrative that bridges the gap between true events and sequences that maybe one would wish could be true.

Part of this is due to the amazing performance by Andrew Garfield, who carries the movie on his two shoulders. I mean, casting-wise, I think they did a good job on picking Garfield because I don’t want to sound stereotypical, he looks like an artist. He’s down to earth, but also a little crazy. If anything, his interpretation of Jonathan Larson made him come off as a more artistic Steve Jobs, because Jobs was kind of eccentric, a little quirky, and I got that sense from Larson as well. I got the sense that he genuinely loves what he does and Garfield had solid chemistry with everyone on screen including his love interest, Alexandra Shipp as Susan. This film kind of reminded me of “La La Land” because that film’s about dreams and the effects that one can have from said dream taking up much of their lives. Will they be able to achieve it? That’s the eternal question. But there’s also the idea that relationships and connections you have in your life can separate you from having a life in which you desire. Same thing with money. There’s the struggle of being able to make it from day to day, and sometimes you think this may not be the best path. This film wonderfully complicates the struggles of one person achieving their dreams. In a world where “follow your dreams” is often the message of the story or the heartbeat that keeps the story alive, it’s nice to see a movie like this handle this main character desire so well.

I want to do my best to not spoil anything when it comes to “Tick, Tick…Boom!” but I sort of related to this film on a personal level. It’s not my favorite film of the year. In fact, after seeing something else, it’s not even my favorite musical film of the year. But I feel like the screenwriter, or Steven Levenson, either took some advice from a screenwriting class, or acknowledged a common saying that starting writers have to hear. I took a screenwriting class and one of the common things I heard in that class is to “write about what you know.” In fact, if you saw the trailer, you’d know those words are used in this film. The way that the film uses said words arguably makes for one of, if not my favorite line, of any movie I’ve seen this year. I think people will look at a film like “Tick, Tick…Boom!” and be wowed by it. Between the acting, the direction, and the music. It is all combined to make something special. But for me, some sequences are enhanced because I have personally dabbled, or am willing to continuously dabble in the arts. I’m an aspiring screenwriter, and one lesson I will always take from my screenwriting class in sophomore year of college is the advice to write about what you know. I won’t say much about the context of those words being used, but the use of them hit me because of what I’ve gone through in my life and what I may end up going through in the future depending on my career path. A good movie can entertain you. A great movie can entertain you and remind you of your own life. “Tick, Tick…Boom!” definitely comes off as great.

In the end, “Tick, Tick…Boom!” delivers a big boom and is a pleasantly enjoyable musical. Lin-Manuel Miranda delivers one of the best directorial efforts I’ve seen all year, one of the best casts I’ve seen all year, and one of my personal most relatable screenplays I’ve seen all year. I have never followed Lin-Manuel Miranda, nor have I followed Jonathan Larson. “Tick, Tick…Boom!” made me appreciate both of them. I’m going to give “Tick, Tick…Boom!” an 8/10!

“Tick, Tick…Boom!” premiered in select theaters this November, but it is also available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to let everyone know that I have more content coming up, which coincidentally, also involves Lin-Manuel Miranda, that being my review for “Encanto!” Stay tuned! Also, I want to wish everyone a happy new year. 2022 is around the corner, which means I will also have my picks for the top 10 best and worst movies of 2021 coming soon. If you want to see this and more on 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 “Tick…Tick…Boom!”? What did you think about it? Also, what is your favorite Netflix original of the year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dear Evan Hansen (2021): A Lackluster Adaptation of the Ben Platt-Starring Musical

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dear Evan Hansen” is directed by Stephen Chbosky (Wonder, The Perks of Being a Wallflower) and stars Ben Platt (Pitch Perfect, The Politician), Julianne Moore (The Big Lebowski, Kingsman: The Golden Circle) Kaitlyn Dever (Unbelievable, Booksmart), Amandla Stenberg (The Darkest Minds, The Hate U Give), Nik Dodani (Murphy Brown, Escape Room), Colton Ryan (Little Voice, Homeland), Danny Pino (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Mayans M.C.), and Amy Adams (Arrival, American Hustle). This film is based on the Broadway show of the same name, which also stars Ben Platt, and follows Evan Hansen as he copes with a social anxiety disorder and finds himself falling down a rabbit hole after the sudden suicide of a classmate, whose sister he crushes on.

I have never been exposed to the musical version of “Dear Evan Hansen,” in fact my earliest memory of seeing anything related to it was by first seeing a trailer for this movie in the theater. I cannot remember if it was “Free Guy” or something else, it might have been “Free Guy,” but I saw the trailer before some movie, and it gave a pleasant first impression from the music and supposed balance of lightheartedness mixed in with serious drama. Then people started talking about Ben Platt’s age, which I did not care about at first, but the Internet has this fiendish method of sucking you into the latest trend that I inevitably got a closer look at Platt from time to time and thought, “Okay…”

If you want my honest thoughts on “Dear Evan Hansen” I can tell you right now that I do not have plans to watch this movie again. Musicals are not my preferred genre, but I should also note that my mother, who is probably more likely to watch musicals than me, watched this movie, and she found the tunes lacking in charm and style. She and I agreed that there are certain segments that are oddly placed and it kind of reminded me of when you’re in school, you’re writing an essay, and because your teacher likes rules, they want you to put in a certain number of transitions. Some of the transitions feel out of left field and almost anger-inducing at times. The songs honestly don’t sound as great as I would have expected either. The movie has two periods. Dead air and uninteresting songs. Nothing more.

No, seriously! This movie has some of the worst pacing I felt all year. I do not need all my movies to go bam bam licketdy split on a popsicle stick, but this movie feels absurdly slow in the worst possible way, and it did not need to be as long as it is. The final runtime comes out to 2 hours and 17 minutes. This movie could have been better if it lost five minutes. Even better if it lost ten minutes. Who knows? Maybe it needed to lose a half hour and one or two songs. The movie elongates in certain scenes, wastes its time, not to mention my time. By the end, part of me is surprised I did not fall asleep. I guess if I’m tired I could watch this movie again, it has that going for it. I mean, if some of the dead air was to promote the social awkwardness between one or two people, then sure, I guess the movie did its job. But it just didn’t work for me. For all I know this works better on a stage than it does in a movie, but if that’s the case, it shows that not everything translates to film. When “In the Heights” is longer and I gave it a more positive look than I did with “Dear Evan Hansen,” that’s a bit of a problem. Granted, it’s only longer by several minutes, but still.

As I watched this movie, I kept looking at Ben Platt, then I looked at his face. I kept looking. …And looking. …And looking some more. Obviously, this harkens back to the age problem. When your film’s star is distracting based on his looks, that’s a red flag. I turned to my mom at one point and told her “This guy looks like Jerry Seinfeld.” And I meant THAT Seinfeld from the 1990s. Every other minute as I type this review, I can almost imagine Ben Platt in a Puffy shirt singing his ass off. Do I think Ben Platt is a bad actor? Not really. Although I should note he’s nowhere near my favorite, nor should he be. I’ve only seen him in “Pitch Perfect” just to be clear, and it’s been years since I’ve seen that movie. But at the same time, watching his performance was a tad awkward, not only because of how old he looks on screen, but at times I did not completely buy into some of his mannerisms. There are certain scenes where Platt’s character is a fine embodiment of the movie’s message, but others where watching him is kind of on the cringe side. I do not know what to say. Even in some of the better scenes I would wonder what they were thinking casting him. Yes, he was in the original show, but do we really need him here?

I have a strong feeling that if Ben Platt’s father, Marc Platt, were not producing this movie, there’s a chance that Ben Platt would probably be more involved behind the scenes and let somebody else take the lead role. Look guys, I am all for family members or people who are related getting together to make movies, but my advice is to ease with caution on your projects otherwise you’ll just end up becoming the next Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone. Gosh, “Superintelligence” was a trainwreck.

In a way, I kind of relate to the main character of Evan Hansen because I never had much of a social life in high school, I think to some degree I had trouble talking to other people, including girls. I just think certain parts of Evan Hansen’s character were exaggerated to such a degree that it took me out of the movie. Granted, it is a musical, and musicals have a tradition of being exaggerated, but my suspense of disbelief can only go so high. Plus, the journey itself that Evan Hansen takes, the fact that he’s living a lie to pretend to the world he has a friend so he can feel good about himself and others around him, kind of made my brain shake. There are worse lies you could tell, but it’s hard to relate to the hero or root for him when the objective of the story is to lie about being friends with someone to share a positive message, all the while being a viral sensation on YouTube. It’s like if I went on a world tour lecturing about the dangers of caffeine and what it can do you, then I go back into my hotel and get a couple Diet Cokes from the vending machine every night. I don’t know. This movie’s an enigma. I get that likable characters cannot be perfect, not everyone can be Superman, characters have to have weaknesses, but something about this story, even with the positive message it provides, kind of turned me off by the end. Maybe I am a hypocrite because not too long ago I started watching HBO’s “Avenue 5” and one thing I liked about the main character was how he advertised himself as the captain of his ship, but he got by because he was charming. He was a flat out liar to the public eye, because behind the scenes, he didn’t know anything. I like the main character on the show for that reason and how his story is handled throughout the couple episodes I’ve seen at least. Ben Platt is an okay singer when the movie allows him to be, but his character became less relatable as the story progressed, and when you have a somewhat lackluster main character, then I do not see the point of returning to this film to watch it a second time.

In the end, “Dear Evan Hansen” is probably one of the more painful movie experiences I had this year, because unlike another musical adaptation that came out in recent years, “Cats,” I actually had some semblance of excitement for this movie. The trailer looked good. The music sounded good. But the actual movie failed to impress me. It’s boring, it has a main character I related to less and less throughout the film, and honestly the musical soundtrack was a bit lackluster for my taste. When you make a musical and the soundtrack collectively is not even halfway decent, then that’s a failure. This is not the worst movie of the year, I’d rather watch “Dear Evan Hansen” over “Tom & Jerry,” but I am going to give “Dear Evan Hansen” a 3/10.

“Dear Evan Hansen” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Be sure to stay tuned for my review of “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” the movie where murder can happen and murder will happen. It’s called Murdphy’s Law! I made it myself. If you want to see this review and more upcoming content, be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account! Also, like the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dear Evan Hansen?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a role that you think someone was either too young or too old to play when they portrayed the character? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

In the Heights (2021): Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Latest Musical to Film Adaptation Heightens Its Way to the Big Screen

Posted on by Jack Drees

“In the Heights” is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, Now You See Me 2) and stars Anthony Ramos (Trolls World Tour, Godzilla: King of the Monsters), Corey Hawkins (Straight Outta Compton, Kong: Skull Island), Leslie Grace, Melissa Barrera (Vida, Tanto amor), Olga Merediz (Shades of Blue, Orange Is the New Black), Daphne Rubin-Vega (Katy Keene, Smash), Gregory Diaz IV (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, New Amsterdam), and Jimmy Smits (Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones, Son of Anarchy). This film is based on a stageplay by Lin-Manuel Miranda and a book by Quiara Algeria Hudes and is set in the New York City neighborhood Washington Heights. The story follows said neighborhood as they imagine and desire a better life.

I saw this film early. And by early I mean the Sunday before it came out. There were a plethora of special screenings so I thought I’d take the opportunity to attend one of them with my grandma because who does not like free stuff? Part of me was hesitant towards paying to see this film because I am not a musical guy even though I have enjoyed stuff here and there like “La La Land.” Maybe I would have used my AMC A-List, but still. Sticking with the facts, I have been reviewing movies for a long time, I am completely focused on the movies that are coming out as audiences continue to return to the theater (even though apparently “In the Heights” could have done better at the box office) so for those reasons, I decided to check out “In the Heights” for myself. I do not know if I would have seen this film during its actual release (or even on HBO Max), so I figured I’d watch it now just to say “Hey! I saw this!” And I did see it, so let’s talk about it.

I just want to iterate a couple things. First, I have heard nothing but praise for Lin-Manuel Miranda. I have not seen any of his Broadway work. Yes, I have not seen “Hamilton.” I’m sorry. I know it is popular, I know there’s a filmed version on Disney+, but I still have not seen it. I’ve heard a few songs from the musical because my sister was with me in the same place and she was playing them, but I was not the one in control of these songs. With that being said, this movie is my first exposure to ANYTHING related to “In the Heights.” Did it give me a good first impression? Well, I certainly did not hate it. I will start off by saying that the film is fun. There are some good songs, although there are a few that are admittedly forgettable despite maybe some solid execution in the actual film. The opening number set the tone well, a lot of the ones that came later seemed to match that original tone and occasionally, its catchiness. The main jingle of the film still lingers in my head from time to time.

The foundation of the film is not exactly one specific character, although the movie is mainly told from the perspective of Usnavi (Anthony Ramos) who did do a good job by the way. Instead, the foundation is this collection of people who belong to one region of New York City. We see all these people sing about the life they prefer to live over their own. And a couple of the songs in the film captured the emotions of these characters’ wishes. Granted, I cannot quote them. It has been a couple weeks and I do not think I’ll be watching “In the Heights” again anytime soon. But when it comes to pure fun, this film has the proper ingredients from time to time and part of it is because of the soundtrack. Will I remember the characters as some of my favorites by the end of the year? Not really. But the movie does an okay job at making Washington Heights itself feel like its own character per se.

I do want to bring up the pacing though. Now obviously, this is a lively, bombastic musical. So obviously, there will be some quick pace and non-stop music action. There is no doubt about that. I think at times the movie does a really good job at matching the songs to the emotions, thoughts, and actions of certain characters. There is one song towards the end mainly revolving around Olga Merediz’s character that I think was done particularly well and it continues to stick with me. Although there are not as many other songs in the movie, as well put together as they are, that have such staying power. Speaking of staying, I feel like I stayed at this movie a little longer than I had to. I felt like the stereotypical dad who goes to his daughter’s dance recital and constantly begs to himself to just stand up and leave because it is going on for such a long time. Although in my case, I think I am displaying less impatience, even though there was some to display, and more curiosity as to when the lights would turn back on. I say that because there is a lot that happens in “In the Heights” which is amazing to me because I talked to a friend who calls herself “that snob” because she liked the stage version much better than the film. I have not seen anything except the film, so more power to her. She told me they made some changes, and they took some things out. That last statement floored me because this film feels packed to the brim with material. Song after song. Character after character. By the end of the film, when it feels like it has hit its climax, there’s actually like ten, twenty minutes of main material left. And I say ten to twenty minutes because I apparently found out that there is an end credits scene in the film that I did not watch.

There are a lot of good things about “In the Heights.” The cast is likable and talented (although somewhat controversial), the film looks very pretty, the cinematography is some of the absolute best I have seen this year and could arguably receive a few nominations during awards season. No, seriously. There is a sequence by the end of this film that I would buy the Blu-ray just to see if they explain how it was done in the bonus features. Additionally, Jon M. Chu did a pretty good job at bringing his vision to reality. It feels lively, fun, spirited, hyperactive from beginning to end. So even though I was kind of begging for the movie to end as it hit what I was its second or third climax, I was still having fun. I’ll even say there are a couple chuckleworthy lines in it. Granted, it’s not like I’m watching Kevin Hart or something, but there are still some funny lines here and there.

In the end, “In the Heights” has good things in it, but I do not think this film will get any replay from me except for maybe once or twice. If I did not review movies, I would probably not go see this by myself. Once again I will say, I did see this with my grandma just for clarification, but if I were in a situation where I did not review movies and I saw the list of movies playing at the theater, I would probably skip “In the Heights” unless I was with someone who really wanted to see it or if I just wanted a spectacle, which this movie did provide from start to finish. When I talk to a friend who says they took some things out of a movie that I still think is too long… That is not a positive. Granted, I did have fun with “In the Heights” and I do recommend it. But the movie feels like “Return of the King” by the end of it. It feels like it could end, but it’s like a party and there’s that one guest that won’t leave no matter how hard you try to shove them out the door. “In the Heights,” I like you, but you can’t stay here. I’m going to give “In the Heights” a 6/10.

Technically speaking, I would give “In the Heights” a tad higher grade than a 6/10, maybe at least a 7, because it does look beautiful. But when you add in the fact that some of the songs did not stick with me, the characters themselves not all sticking with me either, and a runtime that feels like a turtle occasionally wrote this film despite everything feeling fast, that’s a problem. This is why the film gets positive marks from me, even though I would not consider it to be my favorite of the year. I think there will be an audience for it. It started off getting great reviews and I notice the ads seemed to highlight a bunch of celebrities promoting it because apparently some people trust them more than Variety and The New York Times, so I could see “In the Heights” maintaining a cult status. I do recommend if you are to see this film, maybe go with a couple friends to the theater because one of the big positives of the film that I will mention is that it is best viewed on a big screen. As much as I like HBO Max, this movie is bigger than a streaming service.

Speaking of which, “In the Heights” is now playing in theaters everywhere and is currently available for a limited time exclusively on HBO Max.

Thanks for reading this review! Coming soon, I will have my review for “The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard,” the brand new sequel starring Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, and Salma Hayek. That review will be up soon, that is if I survive long enough to actually post it. Also, this Thursday I will be going to see “F9: The Fast Saga.” It comes out in theaters that day, so I will attempt to have my review up for the film as soon as possible. I will also be reviewing the new Disney+ exclusive Pixar movie, “Luca,” which did come out in one theater in California, so without giving anything away, it will qualify towards my future yearly posts including The Jackoff Awards and my top 10 lists. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account and also like the Facebook page so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “In the Heights?” What did you about it? Did you see the stage version? What are your thoughts on that edition of “In the Heights?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!