“Marty Supreme” is directed by Josh Safdie (Uncut Gems, Good Time) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Wonka, A Complete Unknown), Gwyneth Paltrow (Iron Man, Shakespeare in Love), Odessa A’zion (Until Dawn, She Rides Shotgun), Kevin O’Leary (Shark Tank, Project Earth), Tyler, the Creator (Piece by Piece, Jackass Forever), Abel Ferrara (Body Snatchers, Fear City), and Fran Drescher (The Nanny, Hotel Transylvania). Loosely inspired by true events, the film follows Marty Mauser, a shoe salesman who aspires to be a ping pong pro and will do anything, no matter the cost, to make his dream a reality.
Courtesy of A24
The Safdie Brothers have quickly become two of the biggest names working in Hollywood today. Their work together behind the camera has brought forth some excitingly fast-paced films including “Good Time” and “Uncut Gems.” I had the pleasure of rewatching the latter earlier this year, and while it is sometimes hard to keep up with every minute, I appreciate the film’s commitment to delivering one of the most anxiety-inducing cinematic experiences of all time. It is not my favorite film of 2019, but it is certainly one of the most unique.
While the Safdie Brothers may not be working together this year as directors, it allows for both to release their own projects at different points of the year. “The Smashing Machine,” directed by Benny Safdie, released in October. I thought it could have been better. Fast forward a couple months later, that is when Josh Safdie’s “Marty Supreme” hits the big screen. The two films have a couple things in common. Both star big name actors and involve sports. “The Smashing Machine” stars Dwayne Johnson and involves mixed martial arts. “Marty Supreme” on the other hand stars Timothée Chalamet and involves table tennis. These two films have some things in common.
Although one significant difference between “The Smashing Machine” and “Marty Supreme” is that the latter is a much better movie. I walked out of “Marty Supreme” feeling somewhat similar to how I walked out of “Uncut Gems” after seeing it for the first time. While it is not going to be my favorite film of the year, it will be remembered as a one of a kind adrenaline rush featuring a complicated protagonist.
To say Timothée Chalamet plays Marty Mauser would be a disservice because I think the more accurate thing to say is that Chalamet transforms into Marty Mauser. It is quite possible that Chalamet has given the performance of the year, and it is gratifying to end 2025 on such a high note. I had a conversation with a friend in recent weeks and we both agreed that Chalamet has undeniable range between his work in “Dune,” “Wonka,” and even more recently, “A Complete Unknown.” With each and every role he takes on, Chalamet continues to showcase an extreme sense of charisma. But if you go into “Marty Supreme” expecting Chalamet to deliver something as happy go lucky as his lead performance in “Wonka,” prepare to have those expectations subverted. Chalamet’s character is by no means a role model.
Through its marketing and execution, “Marty Supreme” sort of plays out like a classic hero’s journey. Marty wants to get out of his ordinary life as a shoe salesman and will stop at nothing to see his ping pong dreams through. He does not care who he has to push out of the way. He does not care how much money it costs to make something happen. Unlike a real hero, Marty is noticeably self-absorbed. If anything, Marty Mauser is the equivalent of Lightning McQueen from “Cars” if that movie were not filtered for a G-rating. He is a narcissistic brat who wants things to go his way. He clearly passionate about his dreams, but maybe to a sick degree.
As I watched “Marty Supreme,” I could not help but think about “All the Right Moves,” the 1983 film starring Tom Cruise as a high schooler looking for a football scholarship. I found some parallels in my experiences of watching both films. Not only are their protagonists athletic, but they are kind of bratty. That said, “Marty Supreme” manages to present a much more likable lead, at least to me. The protagonist from “All the Right Moves,” Stefen Djordjevic, comes off as a jerk on so many levels. Marty Mauser is also kind of a jerk, but there are moments that despite his selfish tendencies, he has a heart. Though even if he did not have a heart, the movie has such a wild immersion factor that enhances Marty’s journey, as well as those of the supporting characters. I felt completely invested in everything this film had to offer from start to finish.
Speaking of the supporting cast, that aspect of the movie stands out simply because there are some surprising names attached to the project like magician Penn Jillette and venture capitalist Kevin O’Leary (above), the latter of whom plays one of the most significant parts in the project. While “Marty Supreme” may not have my favorite cast of the year, I will give the film props for putting in some eccentric, but nevertheless spot on talent.
That said, while Kevin O’Leary does do an okay job in the film, if you know enough about Kevin O’Leary, chances are you are probably going to walk out of this movie thinking that he played an alternate version of himself. O’Leary’s character, Milton Rockwell, is an influential businessman.
Similarly, Gwyneth Paltrow is also in the film. She puts on a good show as Kay Stone, a retired actress. Paltrow’s role, like O’Leary’s, feels kind of derivative considering Paltrow herself took a break from acting. While O’Leary and Paltrow both play their parts well, they do not hold a candle to Chalamet as the lead, who, as I said earlier, basically transforms into Marty Mauser.
This film, from start to finish, maintains a consistent sense of atmosphere. This film is set in the 1950s, and the production design to match the time spares no expense. The movie is also shot mostly on 35mm film, giving it a somewhat dirty, but also neatly colored look. It kind of reminded me of the look of “Uncut Gems,” which again, Josh Safdie directed. Both films are even shot by the same cinematographer, Darius Khondji. I have to give credit to both of these people because they play a part in taking a sport as simple as ping pong and presenting it as if it happened to be a gladiator match. Not every shot showcases every little bit of action, but there is a breakneck pace to each of the film’s sporting events. I also have to give props, once again, to Timothée Chalamet. His talent leaps off the screen, and it should not be a surprise. Chalamet spent years training for this role by taking lessons and even replacing his living room furniture in his home with a table tennis setup.
On the surface, “Marty Supreme” seems like a sports drama about an aspiring ping pong player, and it is. But the reality is that the film is much more than that. It is about someone who thinks beyond reason. It is about someone whose aspirations are so high to the point where his behavior and actions to achieve the goals he wants to see through become unpredictable. If you want a role model protagonist, this might not be the movie for you. But if you are okay something rough and tough, “Marty Supreme” may be up your alley.
In the end, “Marty Supreme” is a fast-paced thrill of a flick featuring one of the best lead performances of the year. This may be Timothée Chalamet’s greatest demonstration of his acting chops to date, and that is saying something because his portrayal of Bob Dylan in last year’s “A Complete Unknown” is unbelievable. The film packs in a lot of threads, showcases a ton of characters, and never becomes boring throughout its two and a half hour runtime. That said, and not that this is a huge dealbreaker, I wish the movie maybe had a smidge more ping pong, but the ping pong we do get is kinetic and entertaining. That said, I will give credit to “Marty Supreme,” as far as this year’s sports movies go, this is much more of a ping pong movie than “Him” is a football movie. I am going to give “Marty Supreme” a 7/10.
“Marty Supreme” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! With my thoughts on this movie out of the way, that means my next posts are going to be for my top 10 BEST and WORST movies of 2025. I saw nearly all the movies I wanted to see this year. I still have not seen “Song Sung Blue,” “Ne Zha II,” “Sisu: Road to Revenge,” and “Blue Moon.” I only have so much time so I could not quite fit everything in. But some of the movies I did see will be acknowledged in the coming days. If you want to see posts like my upcoming countdowns and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Marty Supreme?” What did you think about it? Or, between Benny Safdie’s “The Smashing Machine” and Josh Safdie’s “Marty Supreme,” which film do you think is superior? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Fackham Hall” is directed by Jim O’Hanlon (Coronation Street, Your Christmas or Mine?) and stars Thomasin McKenzie (Last Night in Soho, Joy), Ben Radcliffe (Pandora, Anatomy of a Scandal), Katherine Waterston (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Afraid), Emma Laird (The Brutalist, A Haunting in Venice), Tom Goodman-Hill (Baby Reindeer, Humans), Anna Maxwell Martin (Bleak House, Motherland), Sue Johnston (Downton Abbey, Coronation Street), Tom Felton (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, The Flash), and Damian Lewis (Billions, Homeland). This film showcases the shenanigans and problems that ensue as a porter forms a bond with the daughter of a prominent family, just as said family is coming together for an extravagant wedding.
If I had to give a rundown of my most anticipated films of the year back in January, chances are “Fackham Hall” would not have made the list, partially because I had no idea it was coming out. In fact, I was first made aware of the film while watching trailers before the underwhelming horror flick “Bone Lake.” This film, like that one, is distributed by Bleecker Street, so it makes sense that the red band trailer, which played exclusively in theaters at the time, would be the last thing I’d see before the feature presentation. But if I were to go back in time and tell my younger self that “Fackham Hall” would be coming out in December, then maybe I would have considered putting it on the list. This is partially because I would tell my younger self that the trailer gave me the biggest belly laughs I have had watching a piece of marketing in years. I do not recall the last time I watched a trailer and nearly lost self-control from cackling as audibly as I did.
Unfortunately, “Fackham Hall” was not as good as I was expecting it to be. Do not get me wrong. It was not an automatic guarantee that this film was not going to work for me. This film is being marketed as “Downton Abbey” meets “Airplane.” As much as I enjoyed “Airplane,” “Downtown Abbey” never struck me as my kind of show. This is why you never saw me review any of the “Downton Abbey” movies. I never watched the show, so it would not make a lot of sense for me to watch the movies. Though I went into this film with an open mind because it came off as something that one could appreciate without necessarily needing to watch “Downton Abbey.” One can argue such a thing to be true.
Among the reasons why I was looking forward to this film, one of them is the the fact that comedian Jimmy Carr is attached to the project. If you know me, you would be aware that Jimmy Carr is one of my all time favorite comedians. I watch his specials on YouTube on a regular basis. I have seen him a few times when he’s performed in New England. I also like him as a game show host. In fact, he is one of the film’s five writers, making this his first screenplay. Carr also has a small role in the film as a vicar. He is only on screen for one to two minutes, but he plays his part to the best of his ability. This is not to say he did a bad job, but he played a character who basically has one running joke, specifically that he says things that sound taboo or wrong, only for him to pause and finish the rest of what he has to say. On paper, the joke is funny. But I have seen the trailer for this film and as someone who was looking forward to seeing Jimmy Carr on screen, I wish he had some variety in his material.
In fact, remember how I said the trailer was one of the funniest I have ever seen? It does not mean the movie is. I think part of that has to do with seeing the trailer in the first place. One of my biggest fears going into any comedy film is the possibility that they show all the best bits in the marketing, and based on what I have seen through “Fackham Hall’s” marketing in particular, I cannot name one joke in that stood out to me that was not in the trailer. Also, multiple jokes likely lost their intended effect since I already got to see them in advance. Other than that, there are a lot of jokes that feel too over the top, and that is saying something for a film called “Fackham Hall.” The film is filled with a lot of toilet and taboo humor. It often came off as if it were being written by a young child who just learned what the word “boobies” means.
Overall, the film has a lot of jokes. Therefore, those jokes trigger a lot of reactions. For a film that ultimately left me underwhelmed, I had a surprising amount of laughs. That said, I cannot really name a favorite joke. Also, with this movie having a lot of jokes, it also indicates that a good chunk of them fell flat. There are a few references to The Beatles and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. While the jokes sound clever on the page, they feel less clever on the screen. I could see myself writing these gags down and amusing myself as I read them, but their delivery in the film did not do it for me. Lots of comedies have jokes that are better than others. Although in the case of “Fackham Hall,” the balance between good jokes and bad jokes is not exactly satisfying.
Also, once again, “Fackham Hall” is written by four people. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall to see the process of the screenplay being put together. I want to know who came up with the best jokes of the film, who came up with the weakest, and how everyone decided to tie the story together. The film comes very close to having an identity crisis. While the film is often smooth sailing, it introduces a mystery plot that makes sense within the context of the film, but it simultaneously feels tacked on.
For all I know, this movie could age well and find an audience over time. If anything, I blame myself for perhaps getting so overly invested in the film prior to its release. This film left such a lasting impression on me before it came out that it only increased the chances that I would be disappointed.
Do not get me wrong. My feelings about the film do not change my opinions about the people involved. Thomasin McKenzie is a great actress and it is nice to see her find work. I am proud of Jimmy Carr for expanding his horizons and doing something outside of standup and game shows. One of the film’s writers happens to be Jimmy’s brother, Patrick Carr. It is lovely to see family working together. Overall, the cast of the film, even the most minor of characters, all do a fantastic job with their roles. I just wish all this talent resulted in something more entertaining.
In the end, “Fackham Hall” is one of the most of the disappointing films of the year for me. Maybe I set my expectations too high, which could be part of the problem. But that initial trailer, to me, promised so much potential for laughter that my hype levels reached the sun. There were definitely laughs in “Fackham Hall,” just not to my desired degree. Once again, this film has five writers. I wonder if that played a part in this film’s pace, because by the time we get to the murder mystery portion of the film, it felt rather out of the blue. Not necessarily in a satisfying and twisty way, but instead it made me go, “Okay, so this is happening…” I would not avoid this movie like the plague, but I still would not recommend it. I am going to give “Fackham Hall” a 5/10.
“Fackham Hall” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Scarlet!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “The Secret Agent,” “Hamnet,” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.” 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 “Fackham Hall?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on “Downton Abbey?” Is it a good show? Are the movies worth watching? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is directed by Rian Johnson and this is the third film in his ongoing “Knives Out” franchise. This film stars Daniel Craig (Casino Royale, Logan Lucky), Josh O’Connor (Challengers, The Crown), Glenn Close (The Wife, Fatal Attraction), Josh Brolin (Avengers: Infinity War, Weapons), Mila Kunis (Family Guy, Jupiter Ascending), Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, The Hurt Locker), Kerry Washington (Scandal, Little Fires Everywhere), Andrew Scott (Sherlock, Ripley), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Civil War), Daryl McCormack (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande, Bad Sisters), and Thomas Haden Church (Spider-Man 3, Wings). This film shows what happens as Benoit Blanc investigates the death of priest who passed during a Good Friday service.
“Wake Up Dead Man” is one of those films that I really should be more excited about. I did not make a most anticipated films of the year list this past January. Frankly, I do not know if I ever will make one of those lists again. But if I did do one for this year, chances are I would have put “Wake Up Dead Man” on it. I really enjoyed the last couple of “Knives Out” movies, especially the original. This film franchise comes off as a passion project for Rian Johnson behind the camera and Daniel Craig in front of it. That said, I kept forgetting that this third film was happening. I knew that a third film would happen at some point. But I feel like the hype machine for this film was miniscule compared to the previous ones. The first film, while definitely somewhat familiar as far as the mystery genre goes, was one of 2019’s freshest and most exciting originals. “Glass Onion” appeared to piggyback off of the first film’s success while still delivering something new and what I thought to be a solid sequel. It also surprisingly implements the COVID-19 pandemic quite well. There were quite a few 2020-esque callbacks that had me laughing. I did not see that coming. “Glass Onion” even got a wider theatrical release than most Netflix projects, as it should have. I could not believe I had the opportunity to watch a Netflix movie at an AMC, but it happened!
Meanwhile, “Wake Up Dead Man” also had a release in theaters, but it appears to have similar treatment to a lot of Netflix’s other movies that end up in cinemas. “Wake Up Dead Man” ended up playing a few locations, but none of the major chains. Not AMC. Not Regal. Not Cinemark. I took advantage of the limited opportunity to catch “Wake Up Dead Man” in cinemas, and part of me is thankful for it. Like the past couple films, “Wake Up Dead Man” has plenty of laughs. It was exciting to see this film play in front of an occasionally audible crowd. That said, of the three “Knives Out” films, I found this one to be the least funny.
One of the biggest positives I can give “Wake Up Dead Man” just so happens to be one of the biggest positives I’ve acknowledged through the last couple of “Knives Out” movies. Daniel Craig looks like he is having a ball in every single scene. Benoit Blanc is a perfect balance between being a voice of reason while also teetering to a point where he is practically a complete goofball. He has such a knack for theatricality and a lust for shenanigans all the while being in complete focus to simply solve whatever case is in front of him. This is Craig’s third outing as Blanc and he continues to shine. Of course, Craig surrounds himself with plenty of star power. This film’s ensemble cast includes big names like Mila Kunis, Josh Brolin, Thomas Haden Church, Kerry Washington, and Josh O’Connor to name a few.
“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels the most Netflix-esque of the “Knives Out” movies so far. Granted, this statement may be unfair, considering the first one is not a Netflix original. It was distributed by Lionsgate. But of the three movies, this is the one that feels the most disposable of the bunch. I hate to stereotype Netflix films, but when I think of Netflix’s filmography, much of what comes to mind is “content.” These are stories designed to be consumed as soon as it drops, only for them to be quickly forgotten. “Wake Up Dead Man” undoubtedly has some memorable moments, but I would not be lying to say it is the most forgettable film of the trilogy so far.
That said, there are some things that this film does to separate itself from the previous two. Like the last couple of films, the story revolves around a large ensemble cast. However, this story involves a group of people who are to a certain degree, constantly in a tight knot, but we also see them constantly separated. Specifically, people who work within and go to a specific church. Sure, we see the cast of first film split up through town, but much of the picture sees a large family gathering in one home. The second film sees a big group of friends coming together at an unusual abode. This film goes bigger and many of the crucial story moments happen from one place, followed by another. It is not like multiple people are dying in the same home similar to the second movie.
“Knives Out” so far has remained a consistent franchise for the most part. All three films are directed by Rian Johnson, and his touch has been exquisite with each go. Every film to a certain degree feels like a throwback set in modern times. All the films run at a smooth pace and have laugh out loud humor. That said, this film let off a particular vibe that the other two did not. As this film reaches the end, it felt draggy. There is a moment in this film where this huge revelation is unveiled. Of course, it is eloquently explained by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc. The film’s timing with its edits, shot choices, and music also play a role in such mastery. While Craig seems to be having fun on set, I had less fun watching him and the surrounding characters during this scene. The revelation is incredibly drawn out, perhaps on purpose. Regardless of the intent, watching this scene occasionally felt tedious. The climax of this film felt rather underwhelming compared to the other two.
All of the “Knives Out” films exceed a two hour runtime including credits. While “Wake Up Dead Man” is the longest “Knives Out” film statistically, it is perhaps the only “Knives Out” movie where I could feel the runtime, almost to the point where I thought the movie was longer than what the runtime said it was. This is the first time I watched a “Knives Out” movie wondering it would end. I was far less invested in this film than I was the other two. Is the film clever? Sure. Is it well made? Sure. But it lacks the oomph that the other two movies have delivered. This may be because I found the screenplay or characters to be less compelling this time around, or perhaps that the formula is not as novel as it was in 2019. As much as I respect Rian Johnson, I would be curious to see what another filmmaker could bring to this franchise in the future. I feel like they could bring a breath of fresh air. This is not a horrible movie, but it is the least palatable of the trilogy so far and by its conclusion, I kept wondering when it would roll the credits.
In the end, “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” feels like a step down for the franchise. I walked out of the first couple of “Knives Out” movies buzzing. Even though I gave “Glass Onion,” a 7/10, which is good, not great, I found the film to be a memorable experience. The first two films had nonstop laughter, engaging plots, and likable characters. While there is still plenty of humor in “Wake Up Dead Man,” I found myself less attached to the story and cast. Sure, Jud is a solid protagonist, but I found the supporting cast to not stand out as much as those from the previous installments. There is no Chris Evans in the cast or Dave Bautista. I cannot name that one character who had one or two extremely quotable lines that I will be thinking about for a long time. Sure, this film gets plenty of big names, but I do not think they were used as well as the actors from the last movies. Maybe I will rewatch the film on Netflix one day and have a totally different opinion, but for now, I am going to give “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” a 6/10.
Little sidenote, this is not sponsored, but if anybody wants to watch a really fun “Knives Out” parody, this is your chance. Netflix, who not only distributes “Knives Out,” but also airs new episodes of “Sesame Street,” released a new short called “Forks Out.” The 5 minute story features the cast of “Sesame Street” trying to figure out who ate the Cookie Monster’s pie, with some help from Detective Beignet Blanc, inspired by Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc from the movies. Go check it out. It’s a take on “Knives Out” with puppets. How can this not be funny?
“Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Jay Kelly!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” “Fackham Hall,” “Scarlet,” “The Secret Agent,” and “Hamnet.” 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 “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film in the “Knives Out” trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Smashing Machine” is directed by Benny Safdie (Uncut Gems, Good Time) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Central Intelligence), Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, The Girl on the Train), Ryan Bader, Bas Rutten (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Kevin Can Wait), and Oleksandr Usyk. This film is about mixed martial arts fighter Mark Kerr and his life in and outside of the ring.
“The Smashing Machine” is maybe my most anticipated film starring Dwayne Johnson in a long time. I like The Rock, but he is not a thespian. He is beyond charismatic, but I never imagined him potentially holding an Academy Award in his hand. That is until this movie happened. If you are familiar with this film’s director, Benny Safdie, then this may remind you of one of his previous films.
Remember “Uncut Gems?” That film starred Adam Sandler, a talented comedian. However, when it comes to his film roles, he lacks range. The reception of his then recent films like “Pixels” or the “Grown Ups” franchise did not help things either. Having Johnson lead this film results in what one could describe as a departure from his typical fare where he simply plays himself.
This movie has a likable actor leading it, and a solid filmmaker directing it. So my question after seeing it is, “Why did I not enjoy this more?”
Admittedly, I am not much of a sports guy. And I do not know squat about MMA. Maybe that has something to do with it. But I am capable of enjoying other movies about combat sports like “Fighting with My Family,” which interesting enough, literally features The Rock playing himself… Or “Cinderella Man,” an engaging underdog story set during the Great Depression. So, what was missing with this flick? If I were to compare this film with those other two, the first thing that comes to mind is that the lead in this film is not exactly someone I cared for. Both “Fighting with My Family” and “Cinderella Man” have admirable lead characters that I could root for. Even if those films had some cliches, they felt like experiences.
Rather than experiencing “The Smashing Machine,” I felt like I was observing it. To my lack of surprise, Dwayne Johnson is excellent as Mark Kerr. It has to be his greatest performance to date and I can see him being nominated for an Oscar this season. But as I watched this character, very rarely was ever able to attach myself to him. The screenplay has the makings of a masterpiece on paper, but the execution sometimes feels flat. The film is based on true events and the story itself is intriguing as a concept, but it does not stick the landing.
That said, Johnson is not the only standout performance in this film. I came for “The Rock,” but you are like me, chances are you will stay for Emily Blunt, who has fantastic chemistry with her on-screen partner. This should not come as too much of a surprise because the two have previously starred alongside each other in Disney’s “Jungle Cruise,” so they probably have a feel for each other’s rhythm. Thankfully, unlike “Jungle Cruise,” “The Smashing Machine” dives more into each star’s chops in conversational, sometimes heavily physical scenes, rather than having them play a small part in a special effects-heavy adventure.
Going to back “Uncut Gems,” if you really enjoyed the style in which that movie was presented, “The Smashing Machine” is not exactly presented in the same manner, but the two projects feel very similar. I say this because both films are not always the most comfortable to watch. When I watched “Uncut Gems” I found the film to be fun and hilarious despite its constant chaos and ridiculous pace. However, fun is not a word I would use to describe “The Smashing Machine.” Sure, like usual, The Rock has charisma, but the story is often serious. Mark Kerr spends quite a bit of time making those around him uncomfortable, and it thereby made me uncomfortable. Both films’ protagonists also have their clear vices, whether its Howard Ratner’s gambling, or Mark Kerr’s substance abuse.
The scores also feel like cousins. I cannot confirm that is a good thing, because this film’s musical score felt very out of place. Personally, I would have preferred something a bit more rock and roll or on the traditional orchestra side. Some of the tunes sound like they belong in a nightclub from another dimension. Overall, it would be inaccurate to call the music in “The Smashing Machine” incompetent, but it feels like it belongs in something much more psychedellic. Maybe it would work if someone were to make a more low budget version of “2001: A Space Odyssey” and shot it in 16mm instead of 65mm.
Speaking of which, much of this film was shot on 16mm film. I cannot say much of “The Smashing Machine” is ingrained in my memory, but I will remember this film because of its vibe. Even during scenes where things are supposed to feel big, the camera often helps bring things down to earth. Never once does this film feel overly explosive. Sometimes it works and lets the film shine in its core character moments. But things do not always work in the rest of the movie.
“The Smashing Machine” barely had an IMAX release, which kind of shocks me. Sure, “One Battle After Another” and “Tron: Ares” came out at similar times, and both are notable films. “One Battle After Another” has prestige and is shot in VistaVision, and “Tron: Ares” is a big budget Disney flick. But “The Smashing Machine” literally contains a scene shot in IMAX, and I know that from behind the scenes info, as well as watching the movie itself. As the film enters its final scene, the aspect ratio changes, even in regular theaters. Traditionally, when an IMAX-shot film changes to its namesake ratio, I find it to be incredibly riveting. But not this time.
Much of the film was shot in 1.85:1, which is close to the traditional 16:9 widescreen seen on most modern programming. To see the film cover my theater screen in this ratio for a majority of the runtime and then suddenly jump to 1.43:1 was completely jarring. Maybe if I watched this film in a proper IMAX I would have felt different, because those screens are designed for scenes like the one at the end of the film. But the transition in my traditional AMC screen made this scene feel less satisfying, and to add another dose of disappointment, less immersive. It is a small thing to point out, and from a character arc perspective, I feel like the film’s technical specs played a part in describing Mark Kerr’s mood at the time. From that point of view, I get why the film was shot and presented the way it was, but it does not change the fact that the on-screen result of all this feels poorly executed.
In the end, “The Smashing Machine” is one of the biggest disappointments of the year for me. I am probably not going to remember much about this movie in the coming months. And that is kind of sad, because this film could have represented something else for me. It could have simply represented a shift in Dwayne Johnson’s career. In the realm of cinema, Johnson is well known as the big, buff, blockbuster guy. Should he stick to that? Judging by how much money this movie made, he might end up doing that. Although, if he wins an Oscar, that could change. “The Smashing Machine” is by no means an incomprehensible mess. But this movie was not for me. Benny Safdie is by no means on my hate list. I cannot wait to see what he can bring to the table as Bowser Jr. in “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” That said, this is not his best work. I am going to give “The Smashing Machine” a 4/10.
“The Smashing Machine” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for a movie I have been looking to talking about for the past four years, “Shelby Oaks,” directed by first time feature director Chris Stuckmann. If that name sounds familiar, then chances are you have seen him through his film reviews on YouTube. Stuckmann played a part in inspiring me to write on this blog, so I look forward to finally talking about this film. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” “Good Fortune,” and “The Running Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Smashing Machine?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of the Safdie brothers, are you looking forward to Josh Safdie’s “Marty Supreme?” The film looks as kinetic as can be and I am here for it. Let me know your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Honey Don’t!” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Substance), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, My Old Ass), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, The Gray Man), and Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The Super Mario Bros. Movie). This film is the latest installment what some may call Ethan Coen and Tricia Cooke’s “lesbian B-movie trilogy” and centers around private investigator Honey O’Donahue, who must look into multiple deaths supposedly tied to a church.
“Honey Don’t!” is Ethan Coen and Margaret Qualley’s latest collaboration following the above average “Drive-Away Dolls.” I ended up giving the film a positive score, but it was far from my favorite movie of 2024. I praised the film when it came out, but if I had to name a core weakness, it would have to be the plot. I liked a lot of what went down in the film, but some of the script is kind of forgettable.
Having seen “Honey Don’t!,” I think it has a lot more in common with “Drive-Away Dolls” than its star-director combo. Both films feature its lead playing a homosexual woman finding herself while connected to an ongoing case. The film heavily leans into its sensual vibes. The film is also on the shorter side with a runtime of 89 minutes. And unsurprisingly, it is tightly paced.
Though one thing that individualizes “Honey Don’t!” is that I honestly do not see myself revisiting the film anytime in the near future. I ended up buying “Drive-Away Dolls” on Blu-ray. At best, I see “Honey Don’t!” as background noise while flipping channels and trying to get some sleep at a hotel. Even as I write this down, I am second-guessing myself. This is the kind of movie that I could imagine playing great if the TV were on mute. It has big stars in it, the overall look of the film is not bad. The production design is sometimes picturesque and individualistic. I will even add that some of the costume choices are memorable. But if you are going to ask me what my favorite part of this movie was, I would draw a blank. This is a clear case of all spark but little personality. At times, the film does have a quirky vibe to it, but it does not really do much to make the overall product better. There is a blandness to the quirkiness, if that makes any sense. It feels weirdly flat.
I said this about “Smurfs” recently, and the people behind “Honey Don’t!” can rest easy, because their movie is nowhere near as awful, but this movie somewhat feels like it should go straight to streaming. If I had to guess, the main reason why this film did not end up on streaming is because of the same reason why “Smurfs” did not end up on streaming, and it is not exactly due to how much it cost or how pristine it looks. Some of the production value is not bad. I thought a lot of the film’s style was clever. But its substance was lacking. It kind of reminded me of The Russo brothers’ “The Gray Man,” because the film is nice to look at, but it stars a talented group of people who deserve a better story. Heck, if I needed an even more recent comparison, Wes Anderson’s “The Phoenician Scheme” seems to fit the bill. Ethan Coen is kind of in the same boat as Wes Anderson given their respected resumes and individual filmmaking quirks. But on top of that, both of these films also have star-studded casts. If these films were not directed by people whose names are as well known as they are, I would imagine that someone is going after several big names to compensate for a lackluster story.
In addition to Margaret Qualley, the film stars Aubrey Plaza, Charlie Day, and Chris Evans, the latter of whom was also in “The Gray Man,” so this is not his first dose of mediocrity in somewhat recent times. I would not say that any of these actors give bad performances. In fact, I buy the chemistry of Qualley and Plaza as a horned-up couple. I thought Charlie Day was charming in his supporting role, even if it is not his best work. I have nothing overtly negative to say about him, much like many of the movie’s other cast members. They play their parts well, even if they are not written to their highest potential.
That said, the real standout for me is Chris Evans, who plays the marvelously unhinged Reverend Drew Devlin. Kind of like his outing in “The Gray Man,” Evans is chaotic in all the right ways. He brings an energy to this film that kept me interested. It is almost cartoon-like compared to some others in the cast, but it works. In recent years, Evans has been proving his range by playing complicated or moronic characters that separate himself from the hero who can do no wrong such as Captain America or Buzz Lightyear, and this is the latest example on Evans’ resume. It is not his best performance, but he comes off as if he is having fun with the role.
While I have not rewatched Ethan Coen’s preceding film to this one, “Drive-Away Dolls,” since the theater, I much prefer it to “Honey Don’t!” simply because there is a clear zaniness to it. The film is funnier, I like the characters more, and much like this movie, it is fun to look at. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand feels like there is something missing. There is an emptiness to it. And empty is not an adjective I would want to use to describe any movie, much less one from a Coen brother and its talented cast. Once again, this is supposedly the second film of an unofficial trilogy. I hope this is the one dud of the bunch. But there is a saying that you are only as good as your last project, and I am a little worried that the next movie could be as flat as this one. I hope that is not the case.
In the end, if I had genuine words to describe “Honey Don’t!”, I would be blanking. This is not the worst film of the year as I can truthfully name some redeeming qualities such as the technical aspects, some of the performances, and to my surprise, the rather tight pacing. The film by no means feels rushed, though I will admit I did check the time at one point. But when it comes to personality, this is where “Drive-Away Dolls” is a slightly better movie. Margaret Qualley is a great actress, and if you want a better example of her talent, maybe go watch “Drive-Away Dolls.” Heck, I would even recommend “The Substance,” which some of you might hate me for saying this, was far from my favorite film of 2024. But that film was something that “Honey Don’t!” was not. An experience. As much as I was turned off by the climax of “The Substance,” I will also likely not forget it anytime soon. “Honey Don’t!” on the other hand is withering in my brain as we speak. I am going to give “Honey Don’t!” a 4/10.
“Honey Don’t!” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Eden.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Splitsville,” “The Long Walk,” “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” and “Him.” 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 “Honey Don’t!”? What did you think about it? Or, which film do you prefer? “Honey Don’t!” or “Drive-Away Dolls?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Accountant 2” is directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed this film’s 2016 predecessor. This film stars Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back), Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead, The Punisher), Cynthia Addai-Robinson (Spartacus, Arrow), Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Originals), and J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Whiplash). This film once again follows Christian Wolff who teams up with his brother, Braxton, to find mysterious assassins.
Before going to see “The Accountant 2” I made an effort to rewatch the original. If you remember my amateurish review you would know that I connected to the film at the time. This was mostly due to how the protagonist was written and executed. Ben Affleck plays an individual who has high functioning autism. I have grown up having many of the traits and quirks that we see from various stages of this character’s life such as his lack of urge to socialize with others. I also thought the film does a good job at providing a humanized portrayal of autism as opposed to a more stereotypical, robotic interpretation.
Is “The Accountant 2” as good as the first one? No, it is not. But is it still worth watching? Perhaps. My biggest problem with this film is that it feels less story-driven and a little more action driven. It’s like the writers listened to Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” and suddenly thought, “We’ve cracked the code!”
Now I have no problem with good action. And to be honest, this movie has some good action. However, the action scenes sometimes lack the oomph of those in the original. Part of it is because the story here is rather convoluted. I am not going to pretend the story in the original riveted me all the way through. The movie relied way too much on flashbacks towards the end to the point of utter boredom. But this sequel at times feels overstuffed.
While the film may be slightly above average, one great thing about it is the chemistry between Christian (Affleck) and Braxton (Bernthal). The film spends lots of time putting these two in the same place, and every scene between them is worth the price of admission. There is a fantastic scene where Bernthal says he wants a dog and Affleck says everything possible to confirm that he is a cat person. The delivery between these two is on point each and every time.
Going back to how I relate to the characters in this franchise, I almost see Christian and Braxton as a personal representation of a conflict that has been circling in my mind nonstop throughout my young adult life. While these two bond as brothers, they have their differences. One key difference between these two is their individual wants in life. We see Braxton as a lone wolf, which I have always been throughout most of my life. If he puts his mind to something, he does it. He works on his own terms. But then we find out a little bit about Christian, who would like to have a partner he can check in on every once in a while. In this way, Christian, is a little more than meets the eye. You would not expect someone of his mannerisms to be interested in a relationship, but I buy his desire. As I watched this film I thought these character differences represented my personal yin and yang. Do I love being alone? Quite a bit, actually. But do I want someone to check in on? A part of me thinks about it every day.
Speaking of conflicts, I have a conflicting opinion regarding Christian Wolff in this film. Starting with the positives, I genuinely think Ben Affleck put a lot of effort into his performance and he is a standout as the character. Although some of the choices that were made in regard to the character threw me off. I get that Wolff has autism, but he comes off as a robot in this film, especially in comparison to the original. If anything, Wolff is sometimes a lackluster stereotype for people on the spectrum. For some reason, some of his line delivery and choice of words lack authenticity. I would not say that this film paints autism in the worst light, but sometimes his performance, particularly through his onslaught of stoicism, is overly emphasized. Sure, in the original, Wolff may be a bit robotic, but he also has a heart as well as feelings. In this sequel, he sounds more like the T-800. Sure, Affleck is not entirely robotic. When paired with Bernthal in this film, the two seem like genuine brothers. But if I were to judge Affleck by himself, he is sometimes soulless. Again, this is not an incompetent performance. I just think a little more depth and pizzazz could have been added to it.
“The Accountant 2” is not a movie I can see myself renting or buying to watch on my own schedule. To me, it is a cable movie. It is a movie that I would watch on a Sunday at home and eventually rely on for background noise. Now whether this movie will ever end up on cable is another story. The film is from Amazon after all and I doubt they want anybody leaving Prime or whatever the heck MGM+ is. Seriously, who uses MGM+? Anyone? If you have not seen the original “Accountant,” I much recommend that film over this one. It moves at a better pace, is less convoluted, and honestly does a much better job at characterization than the sequel. I enjoyed getting to know Christian Wolff not only through his profession but as someone who is on the spectrum. I thought the flashbacks during that film, most of them anyway, were used to its benefit. Like this sequel, the original has some decent action, but I cared more about what happened during those action scenes based on what I was learning about Christian as a character at the time. The sequel’s action is not bad, but it suffers from inferior character progression as well as storytelling. If it were not for the perfect chemistry between Affleck and Bernthal, I do not think I would be lending as much praise to this film.
In the end, “The Accountant 2” has its ups and downs. There are other recent films I would recommend watching before this one, especially in the action genre. Although if you are simply looking for good action, you will find it here. But this film is not a full meal. It satisfies in some ways and leaves a little to be desired in others. Do not get me wrong, Ben Affleck does not do a bad job in this film, and neither does Jon Bernthal. But I would not rush to see this film right away. I am going to give “The Accountant 2” a 6/10.
“The Accountant 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Prime Video.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Sinners” is directed by Ryan Coogler (Creed, Black Panther) and stars Michael B. Jordan (Creed, Black Panther), Hailee Steinfeld (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Hawkeye), Miles Caton, Jack O’Connell (Back to Black, Skins), Wunmi Mosaku (Moses Jones, Vera), Jayme Lawson (How to Blow Up a Pipeline, The Batman), Omar Miller (Ballers, CSI: Miami), and Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods, The Good Fight). This film is about two criminal twin brothers who start over in their hometown, only to discover that a greater evil is about to welcome them back.
I have been eager to see “Sinners” since the first trailer dropped last year. It did not explain a ton, but like a lot of good first trailers, it gave “enough” to sell me. And that is putting things lightly. Because I thought it was very well put together. The film had a lot to like behind the scenes. Michael B. Jordan playing two roles… Other great cast members like Hailee Steinfeld in the supporting roles… Ryan Coogler in the director’s chair… Things were lining up perfectly. And to later find out that the film was shot on IMAX cameras, I could not be more in if I tried. The hype I had for this film was through the roof. So was it worth the excitement? To a certain degree, yes.
This might shock some of you, “Sinners” is not necessarily my favorite film of the year so far. If I had to be honest, I think it had some minor pacing issues and I cannot say I walked out of the theater remembering every single character’s name. I was engaged with the film, but I have seen better this year when it comes to the story. It is hard to say the film is overrated though. I can totally see why other people would consider it to be a masterpiece. I do want to watch the film again at some point, and I genuinely think it would benefit from a second viewing.
That said, I think when it comes to pure experiences, there are few that compare to “Sinners.” For the record, I saw this film in IMAX 70mm, meaning I was able to experience “Sinners” in the most definitive way possible, with the finest detail and clearest sound, so there were definitely some enhancements. Regardless of however you see “Sinners,” do so on the biggest screen you can.
This film is shot entirely on 65mm film, some of it in IMAX. Every frame of this film looks immaculate. Several shots might as well be a painting. This movie also makes history, as it is also the first film shot in IMAX by a woman. Autumn Durald Arkapaw is behind the camera for this project and there is so much to love about how she handled the end product. Many of the exterior shots in particular are going to linger in my mind throughout the year.
Much like another one of Ryan Coogler’s films, “Black Panther,” “Sinners” is a great time. Also like “Black Panther,” this is a film perhaps best suited for Ryan Coogler’s voice. This is a film that I, a straight white male, would probably sully if I were to write or direct it myself. There is a sense of pride in each scene, each shot, each line, and that is because of Coogler’s touch. He clearly knows what he is doing. If you remember “Black Panther,” one of my favorite moments from that film is this one action scene in a casino where the camera navigates between levels to get a solid view of different things that are going down. I thought it was a flawless one take scene, but without going into detail, there is a one take scene during this film that might surpass that moment if you ask me when it comes to execution.
Not too surprisingly, I am quite impressed with the film’s cast. Of course, you have a talented actor in Michael B. Jordan who plays not just one, but two roles. He does a good job here. Both of his characters have charisma. Despite some differences, the two twins genuinely feel like the same person at times. That might have been the point because watching these two reminded me of my own interactions with twins in real life. Mainly because as much as I have built a bond with some of them, I will admit, despite them wearing different outfits and letting off slightly different mannerisms, it is occasionally hard to tell which one is which unless you are digging for certain features.
From mainstay talent to young talent, this film is also the acting debut of Miles Caton. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Caton is going to have a great career. Now he is at the helm of a terrific director, so part of his on-screen talent may be owed to Ryan Coogler. Even so, seeing what I have seen of him in this movie, it shocks me that this is his first role. If anything I would figure he would have a few under his belt. Maybe they were never documented on his IMDb page, I do not know.
While I cannot see it winning an Academy Award, the standout performance for me in this film is Hailee Steinfeld as Mary. I think of all the characters in this movie, she is the one written in the sense that allows for the most range. If you have seen the trailer, you can probably get a sense of where this character is going, where the narrative takes her. But when it gets to “that” point, it is satisfying. I have seen Hailee Steinfeld in other projects, but this is arguably the most fun she has been on screen. It is not my favorite role of Steinfeld’s, but if I were to determine which role of hers appears to be the most fun, I think it comes down to “Sinners” and “The Edge of Seventeen.”
“Sinners” is a vampire movie, and it is a good vampire movie at that. But it kind of gives you a little bit more than just vampires. It takes on concepts such as brotherly connections, music, and then it goes ahead and plops in vampires as a bonus. And when it gets to the vampires, it is a treat. The film has its scary moments. It has its fun moments. The action during the vampire-centered scenes is very well done. This is a film that if you are to see it, try do so on the big screen. The music in the film is also attention-grabbing from the foot-tappable soundtrack to Ludwig Göransson’s admirable score.
If I had anything else to say, and I hate to say this, but I will be real, I am going to remember this film more for its second half than its first. For me, this film took a bit to get going, and I do mean a bit. But when it gets into gear, it goes at lightspeed. That said, the entire film is worth watching. Check it out.
In the end, “Sinners” is a thumbs up. It is another solid outing from director Ryan Coogler. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I could totally see “Sinners” getting some awards attention, especially in the technical categories like film editing and cinematography. But again, I do want to emphasize that this film is one that starts off okay but gets better as it goes. I do not want to confuse anybody. I never said this film was bad, but the second half is much more inviting to me than the first. I might be alone in this statement. I have talked to friends who say that this film is peak cinema. If anything, I think it is a fine movie. I would watch it again. And I will say this again, maybe it would benefit from a second watch. I am going to give “Sinners” a 7/10.
“Sinners” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Marvel’s latest project, “Thunderbolts*!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Rust,” “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “The Accountant 2.” If you want to see my thoughts on these films and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Sinners?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film directed by Ryan Coogler? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“I’m Still Here” is directed by Walter Salles (Central Station, The Motorcycle Diaries) and stars Fernanda Torres (Love Me Forever or Never, The House of Sand), Selton Mello (A Dog’s Will, Lisbela and the Prisoner), and Fernanda Montenegro (Sweet Mother, Central Station). This film is based on a memoir of the same name and is about a mother who deals with the forced disappearance of her husband, former politician Rubens Paiva, who opposed Brazil’s military dictatorship.
In an effort to catch all of this year’s Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, I had to find a way to check “I’m Still Here” off my list. One key difference when it comes to this nominee in particular compared to say “Anora” or “Wicked” or “Dune: Part Two” is that I went into this film knowing nothing about it. All that I really knew was that it was a Brazilian movie, the characters speak Portuguese, and it was getting a lot of critical acclaim. I went in completely blind, having barely come across as much as a poster. Safe to say, I did not know what to expect.
Thankfully, I came out of this movie feeling satisfied.
“I’m Still Here” is not an easy watch. Some of my audience might think I say such a thing because this is a film not made in the United States or a film where English is not the primary language used in the dialogue.. That is not my point. Though I can see why those two things could turn some people off upon a first impression. Instead, this film deals with a serious subject matter that I imagine would be tough for some viewers. The film is dramatic, yet grounded at the same time. It is perfectly balanced in its attempt to be both an inviting slice of life story and an engaging political thriller. The film is like life itself. It has its happy moments. It has its sad moments. And in the long run, it is worth seeking out.
One of my favorite things about this film is how it handles the importance of family, especially when you consider the protagonist’s point of view, as well as the many obstacles she must face just to be with them, or do what is best for them. We see her trying to protect them under their respective political landscape, as well as do anything and everything she can to uncover her husband’s whereabouts. The film shows what it means to stay connected even in the darkest of times.
The family itself is well written and decently cast. There is not a single person on the lineup I found to be out of place, and I thought everyone’s personality shone through. Honestly, the entire cast of the film serves their purpose and does a good job. I cannot name a bad apple on the tree. But Fernanda Torres is on another level with her performance here.
There is a reason why Fernanda Torres was nominated for an Academy Award. She is the film’s soul and I cannot see anyone else playing her. Every moment, every line, every facial expression, she sold me. Torres is commanding in every scene. The movie gives her a lot to do and she handles all of her material very well. I have been doing some research online to see what everyone is saying about this film, and just about every other person I am coming across is losing their mind over Torres. I may not be adding anything new to the conversation that has not already been said, but she is easily the best part of the movie.
This film is based on true events. On that note, the story features real life politician Rubens Paiva (left). I do not know a ton about the real events that inspired this film, but I did some research on Paiva following the film and I have to say kudos to whoever cast Selton Mello, because he looks the part. Granted, acting ability is arguably more important, and thankfully, he has that in spades.
One of the reasons why I have come to realize “I’m Still Here” has some of the best collective acting in 2024 cinema is likely because of the way the film was shot. If you know how movie productions tend to work, not every project is shot in chronological order. “I’m Still Here” is an exception to the rule. I think this move paid off, because it allowed the talent to experience the sense of immersion in their story that viewers like I did while watching it unfold.
On that note, “I’m Still Here” is quite an immersive movie. “I’m Still Here” has more in common with a slice of life tale than a large scale epic, but the movie sometimes feels as large as life itself. Whether I was at a family gathering, the beach, or the inside of a home, I felt like I was a part of this film’s world. Such a sentiment is also true for a prison, which does not emit the most pleasant feeling, but every scene in this film, like it or not, had a sense of verisimilitude. The film takes time to showcase the beauty of life, but also keeps things real by reminding people of the extreme obstacles our characters constantly encounter.
At times, this movie is the definition of the idea that life goes on. An integral part of your life may cease to exist, but as long as you are still around, it is up to you to decide how to navigate things going forward. You could remember your past, run from it, choose to reinvent yourself. Sometimes that integral part may leave you in a literal sense, but deep down, it will always be with you.
The movie ends on a satisfying note. The final scene is exquisitely acted and well directed. It also goes to show the power of silence. Filmmaking is a visual medium, and any opportunity that can be taken to let the visuals do the talking allows for great scenes like this one. I will leave the details undisclosed for now and let you see the proper craftsmanship for yourself.
In the end, “I’m Still Here” was kind of a last minute purchase for me. I probably would not have seen this film if it were not for the word of mouth it racked up during this awards season. And I am happy to have added to it. This film is full of great performances, gripping scenes, and solid chemistry amongst its cast. Of course, Fernanda Torres is the standout, but the supporting actors also add quite a bit to the final product. It is not an easy watch, but I think if you can handle the material, this movie could be worth your time. I am going to give “I’m Still Here” a 7/10.
“I’m Still Here” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! I have reviews on the way for “Riff Raff,” “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” and “Locked.” Stay tuned!
And coming on March 30th, look forward to the 7th Annual Jack Awards! The most important awards show in the history of movie blogs! Why? Because I said so! This is a reminder that you have the power to vote for this year’s Best Picture! You can do so by clicking this link and choosing one of the ten nominees. And click this link if you want to know what films are nominated for this year’s ceremony! Unfortunately, “I’m Still Here” was not nominated for any awards this year, but if I were to add a sixth candidate for Best Actress, Fernanda Torres would probably earn that spot. It was a very close call. But rules are rules. I did see this movie before announcing the nominations last week, but Torres’ honestly goes to show how great acting has been across the board for several performers over the past year. If you want to see this upcoming show and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “I’m Still Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the saddest film you saw in the past year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Colors Within” is directed by Naoko Yamada (A Silent Voice: The Movie, K-On!) and stars Akari Takaishi (Watashi no Ichiban Saiakuna Tomodachi, Baby Assassins), Sayu Suzukawa (Cool Doji Danshi, Falling high school girl and Irresponsible teacher), Taisei Kido (First Love, Yuria-sensei no Akai Ito), and Yui Aragaki (Digimon Data Squad, Mixed Doubles). This film centers around a girl named Totsuko. She is in a band and can see the colors of other people.
January has been a very slow month for me in terms of movies. Granted, it is typically a slow month for movies in general. There really is not a lot coming out this month that caught my genuine interest. Although “The Colors Within” was an exception. The concept sounded rather intriguing, particularly in regards to how the movie seems to handle its protagonist. While the protagonist’s life could be ordinary, their extraordinary trait certainly stood out to me, particularly their ability to see color. Or, more accurately, to see color in a way that most people do not. I think that could make for not only an interesting story, but one that is visually inviting.
As expected, the animation style for “The Colors Within” is pleasant to the naked eye. Is it the best I have ever seen? No. However, it is still a style that pops and maintains a consistent bright palette to it. It is a welcoming look considering the movie, despite having occasional drama, always maintains a sense of lightheartedness. By the end of this movie, I left with a smile, and part of it may have been due to looking at something that appeared rather heavenly at times.
Color-wise, the movie tends to live up to its name, but I have to be frank. If I were to judge “The Colors Within” by its cover so to speak, I have to say that the concept at times feels gimmicky. When the movie tells its audience about its main character’s ability to see color, it sounds intriguing. But I feel like the movie minimizes its chances to show such an aspect in a visually stunning manner. Granted, I enjoyed seeing our main character use her unique trait as a point of inspiration in making music. In fact, if I had to name a favorite part of the movie, it would be getting to see a few artists coming together to get creative. “The Colors Within” reminds me of “Sing Sing,” which, spoiler, I think is a better movie. It is a movie about a bunch of people expressing themselves through art, and how art lets people forget their troubles. Again, going back to the animation of the film, I do think it looks nice. But I think the film’s animation barely enhances the story. Looking back, it barely feels different than if I were to see something more traditional within the anime medium. Does the film effectively convey the protagonist’s “power” so to speak? You could say that, yes. But it really does not add much to the overall experience if you ask me.
The film also features a list of original songs, all of which are at minimum, fun to listen to. There is one in particular that is repeated during the film that became rather catchy by the end. Also, as a piece of music, it was nice to see this one song evolve from a simple idea to something much bigger. It reminds me of some of my own projects. There was a short film that I created in college that I thought of based on one of my own weird interests. I made it with a couple other people who had their own ideas that they built on top of it. It was amazing to see this small idea develop. Seeing Totsuko brainstorm her own song and have it come to life kind of reminded me of the process of creating my own art.
This film mainly revolves around three main characters. Totsuko, Kimi, and Rui. The three come together to make music. I love seeing them all in the same room. Not only do they come off as genuine friends, but seeing them together allows each one to unleash the deepest part of themselves. That is when they are most honest about how they feel, what is going on in their lives. It allows for some of the film’s most emotionally hypnotic scenes. We find out not only do they enjoy making music, but how such a passion interferes with their personal lives.
We find out Rui loves making music, but his family expects him to become a doctor and take the next step in the family business. I think a good amount of people can relate to Rui’s dilemma. Rui seems so concerned with impressing his parents that he is having trouble accepting what he really wants to do. I am all the more invested in a character knowing not only is he having fun doing what he is doing, but he is feeling perhaps the freest he has felt in his life.
Kimi also has a problem where if she were to be honest about it, she could end up disappointing her own family. We find out Kimi dropped out of school and has yet to tell her grandmother about it. The film’s characters seem to share the commonality of holding something back, hiding their true thoughts, and maybe not being their full selves. When we see them make music however, that changes. We see them at their happiest, their liveliest. That happiness leaps off the screen to the point where I too am smiling.
To be real with you, while most of the movie revolves around Totsuko, I admittedly found myself latching more to the supporting characters in terms of their backstory. I found their presence to be more compelling. This is not to say Totsuko is a horribly written character. I do not hate her. Again, I think the “colors” aspect was not as well established as it could have been. It had potential, but I do not think all of it was unleashed properly. But I think Totsuko is a pleasant center to the film as she sees her two bandmates flesh themselves out.
In the end, “The Colors Within” is just plain fun. It took me awhile to take the anime medium seriously as someone who watches a lot of movies. While I never outright hated it, it was always hard to find a gateway to watching more of it. I am glad watching films like “Belle” a few years back have opened my eyes because it has allowed me to seek out great projects like this. If you are a creative individual, I highly recommend this film. I will be real, 2025 is off to a crazy start between the Los Angeles wildfires, the political division, the recent plane and helicopter collision in Washington, DC… I said earlier that this film highlights art’s abilities to make you forget your troubles. I think there is a case to be made that while “The Colors Within” will not make your problems in life disappear, they will be left in the background for sometime. I left this movie feeling giddy, and excited to watch it again at some point. I think some of you reading this review will feel the same way if you were to seek this movie out. I already watched this film in the Japanese language, and I am eager to check out the English dub when I get the chance. I am going to give “The Colors Within” a 7/10.
“The Colors Within” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Dog Man” and “Love Me.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Colors Within?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that you enjoy about artistic expression? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Kraven the Hunter” is directed by J.C. Chandor (A Most Violent Year, Margin Call) and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Gladiator II), Alessandro Nivola (Amsterdam, Jurassic Park III), Christopher Abbott (Girls, The Sinner), and Russell Crowe (Thor: Love and Thunder, Gladiator). This film is about Sergei Kravinoff, AKA Kraven the Hunter, and explores his complex relationship with his father in addition to how he uses his hunting skills to find targets and seek revenge.
Have you guys ever heard the saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,”? That phrase could almost apply to my experience with the Sony Spider-Man Universe. Note the use of the word almost. I say this because I basically go to see Sony’s Spider-Man villain standalone films out of obligation. Very rarely do I look forward to these movies. I think the closest I got to actually looking forward to one of these movies was “Morbius,” which ended up being my worst film of 2022. Although now that I think about it, I was intrigued by at least one trailer for “Venom: Let There be Carnage” before it came out. At least there is that.
For those playing catchup, let me give you the rundown so far on my thoughts on all the movies in the Sony Spider-Man universe… First “Venom” movie… Terrible! A lot of people seem to think it is okay. I think it is one of the most bland, boring, and horribly polished comic book movies ever made. Second “Venom” movie… Actually, pretty good. I thought the action was fun, it ups the one good thing about the original movie, specifically the humor. And it contains maybe the greatest PG-13 f-bomb in cinematic history. “Morbius…” A big fat joke! Other than Jared Leto’s performance and parts of the first act, there is nothing redeeming about this film. Oh yeah, let’s not forget that the marketing lied to its audience and the film may be responsible for the most tacked on and abysmal end credits scenes of all time. “Madame Web…” somehow WORSE than “Morbius!” Not even big name actors can save this abomination! Also, for some reason, this schlock saw the light of day despite being written by the same team who wrote “Morbius.” Bad dialogue, okay at best action, horrible camerawork, and another case of deceptive marketing. Genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen, and if you think I am saying this for dramatic effect, I have some magic beans to sell you. And lastly, “Venom: The Last Dance…” Safe to say, I was immensely bored. Other than the chemistry between Eddie and the titular character on top of one admirable motivation between them, I thought this threequel was a waste of time. Add on a whole Area 51 subplot that nearly put me to sleep, then you have a recipe for, surprisingly, the second best Sony Spider-Man Universe movie. How sad.
Thus far, the Sony Spider-Man Universe, or whatever you want to call it at this point, is one for five. People say the recently finished DCEU sucks compared to the MCU? Oh, boy oh boy, this universe WISHES it were the DCEU! That universe has cinematic bangers like “Wonder Woman” and “The Suicide Squad!” The DCEU even spawned the incredible TV series “Peacemaker!” While definitely inconsistent, when that cinematic universe fired on all cylinders, it was on the right track. But “Kraven the Hunter” had something attached to it that the other movies did not… An R rating! Yeah! That “Morbius” nonsense? That is for babies! Now it is daddy’s turn! If “Deadpool” can get away with an R, so can “Kraven!”
Having seen the movie, it may be able to get away with an R, but it certainly is not getting away from my infinite rage. This is yet another epic fail for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. Though am I really surprised?
Sony, how many times do we have to do this same old song and dance before it becomes stale? I think this is a great question.
…If I were an imbecile!
This whole Sony Spider-Man Barrel of Monkeys was already stale from the first of these wannabe “Spider-Man” flicks. I ask this question specifically to you guys. Genuinely! What on earth are you doing?! What is it going to take for this saga of nonsense to end?! I understand that the rights to “Spider-Man” are your most valuable asset, but if you keep making movies like these, then this whole property is going to be a joke. Tom Holland is not going to be playing the character forever. The “Spider-Verse” series can only go on for so long. You can only do so many crossovers involving the three live-action Spider-Men before they stop acting. The solution is not to continue making cheap, boring anti-hero movies featuring villains as the main character. Movies like “Kraven the Hunter” justify cases where movies like “Batgirl” get scrapped by the studio for a tax write-off.
Honestly, if someone popped me the question as to which movie I would want to watch more, and I had to pick between the first “Venom” and “Kraven the Hunter,” I might go with “Venom!” At least in “Venom,” you had some occasional funny lines and some decent chemistry between the two main characters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is clearly giving the lead role his all here. But he does not have a great script to back him up. While Aaron Taylor-Johnson is playing the lead role, he is not even the most high profile actor on the roster. The film also features Russell Crowe, and I think it is safe to say that I was not entertained by his completely one-dimensional so-called character. Crowe plays Kraven’s father, and not only is he unworthy of even a Dollar Tree card on Father’s Day, but he has incredibly repetitive, cliche dialogue. The movie clearly establishes him as far from the finest father figure. That seems to be the point at times. But I cared so little about the story and characters of this film to the point where Crowe’s character comes off as a joke.
Then you have Ariana DeBose, who is one of the most dynamic, lively, energetic talents working today. The woman in the past couple years deservedly won an Academy Award for “West Side Story.” She was also pretty good in other films following that, even if they did not get the best reviews. Unpopular opinion, I really liked “Wish…” I said what I said. DeBose, to my shock and amazement, plays one of the most forgettable core characters of a comic book film I have ever seen. If you were to ask me what the purpose of this character was in a few years from now, I will probably refer to her as the boring tarot card lady or something, because while her presence serves the story, it does so in maybe the dullest way possible. Shoutout to Sony for making two movies in the same year that somehow made me give me even less of a crap about tarot cards than I already do. Anybody remember the film “Tarot” from earlier this year? No? If you are loyal to this blog you will hear about it again soon on the top 10 worst movies of 2024 list once I get finished with that. You know, kind of like this atrocity some like to call a comic book movie.
Going back to what I said about “Madame Web” and how a big name cast could not save the film from being bad. I think “Kraven the Hunter” somehow takes that inferiority to another level. Because yes, Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney have been in big projects. Some good, some bad. That is the classic life of an actor, but they are both lucky enough to achieve their level of fame. Sweeney has been nominated for a couple Primetime Emmys so congrats to her. That said, “Kraven the Hunter” is much more excruciating to think about because while “Madame Web’s” Sweeney has gotten some awards attention, “Kraven” has multiple actors who have actually have prestigious awards on their mantle.
Again, you have Russell Crowe who has an extended career, an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, and two Golden Globes. Circling back to Ariana DeBose, it was like watching Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy in “Batman & Robin,” but worse. Because while Thurman was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in “Pulp Fiction,” a couple years before that flopbuster came out, DeBose actually WON her Academy Award. I do not think DeBose’s performance is Razzie-worthy. There is nothing extreme about it that makes it stand out as one of the worst performances of all time. The best word I can use to describe it would be “tiring.” I guess that is one reason to watch this movie again. If I am really tired and want to catch some z’s, “Kraven the Hunter” might make for solid background noise.
I will be fair to Crowe, however. As infuriating as his character is to watch, I must admit he makes the most of a crappy script with his chops. Crowe does his best with the material to the point where I almost cannot imagine anyone else in his role. So… Yay?…
Another actor I enjoyed watching in this hot mess? Aaron Taylor-Johnson. No, it is not because of his abs. He legit does an okay job as the lead. Again, his character is not written well. But I buy him in the role. He is not perfect, but he definitely has an inkling of charisma. I just wish such charisma were saved for something that would not be a waste of my time and money. That is another consistency with these Sony movies. As much as I do not like “Venom,” I still think Tom Hardy is well cast as the lead role. Same goes for Jared Leto in “Morbius.”
For those of you who saw the first eight minutes of the movie when it dropped online, you would know it starts off with, admittedly, a halfway decent action sequence. That adjective might as well be used to describe a good amount of the action in this film. The action does not reinvent the wheel. There are a couple cuts that I thought were a little too quick, but for the most part, the action is one of the better parts of the movie. “Kraven the Hunter” sometimes finds its footing in some places, but when it comes to structure, that is definitely not one of those places. Sure, the movie starts off with a decent action scene that could likely hook viewers into the story. But then we get to the part of the film that dives into Kraven’s origins. The timing of this transition feels abrupt and out of place. Given the length of these moments and how long it deviates from what we already saw in Kraven’s adulthood, I would have preferred for the final cut of the film to start with Kraven’s origins. It would allow me to more easily know and understand the characters that way if we were to get to an action sequence like the one we see at the beginning, I would probably care a little more about the people in the scene and possibly the sequence itself.
I will give props to Sony for not hiring Mark Sazama and Burk Sharpless to write this film. Although to be fair, they were probably already busy figuring out how to beat the odds and make a worse screenplay for “Madame Web” than they did for “Morbius.” Spoiler alert, they did. Instead, this film has three writers. You have Richard Wenk, known for writing the “Equalizer” movies starring Denzel Washington. I have not watched those films, but I have heard good things. His resume contains some other notable work, but oddly enough, I cannot give my opinion on any of his titles because I never watched any of them. As for the other two writers, you have Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. These are two of the four writers responsible for one of the better Marvel Cinematic Universe films, “Iron Man.” Although the rest of their resume is not particularly great. There is “Men in Black: International,” which I actually liked. But there are also a lot of people who would challenge my unpopular opinion. They just did “Uncharted,” which has a couple cool action scenes, but the screenplay has nothing that stands out about it. The film itself is rather unmemorable. Then we travel back in time to my least favorite movie of theirs, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” My biggest problem with the film is with the headache-inducing use of IMAX technology that honestly leaves no one but Michael Bay to blame. But if I had another notable problem, it is that the film’s script repeats the problems of the previous movies, but somehow delivers maybe the least engaging journey the franchise has given yet. Going back even further to a movie I did not see, these two even did “Punisher: War Zone,” which was not only poorly reviewed, but with more than $10 million total, it made less money at the box office than any other movie based on Marvel Comics. Part of me is convinced that Sony could be having a streak of bad luck, but then I look at the resumes of the people they hire and I think either their options are limited, they are choosing the wrong people, or they have better options out there and do not want to spend more money on them. I have no clue.
In all seriousness though, this trio of writers managed to join forces to create one of the most snore-inducing films of the year. I do not think there is any way to sugarcoat this. It is also full of Academy Award-level lines like “I’m a hunter.” In addition to Russell Crowe repeatedly telling his boys, and therefore the audience, that their mother died and she was weak. As I watched this movie and came to realize the director and cast handled their material, I honestly thought “Kraven the Hunter” has a feel that is kind of similar to “The Room.” I say kind of because unlike “The Room,” the chances of me ever watching “Kraven the Hunter” again are pretty slim. But this is a movie that I can honestly watch, acknowledge how bad it is, and sometimes burst out laughing for the wrong reasons. If you want a more genre-related example, I will go back to the recently mentioned “Batman & Robin.” It definitely makes me laugh, but the humor sometimes feels accidental.
You know the Island of Misfit Toys from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?” If there were ever a place I could associate with this universe, that would be it. I assume most inhabitants, or in this case, filmmakers, actors, producers, crew, etc., that make it up are kind, but compared to the toys Santa delivers to kids on Christmas, which in this case would be Disney’s MCU and Warner Brothers’ DCEU, Sony’s got its own little private island full of outcasts. I have not gone back to watch a single Sony Spider-Man Enigmaverse movie since seeing them in the theater, other than “Venom: Let There be Carnage” when it was airing one time on cable. It is like that scene from “Toy Story 2” where Andy picks up Woody and says he does not want to play with him anymore, except in this case, the toy is fresh out of the box and has barely been used.
This is why I ask Sony not to sell the rights to “Spider-Man…” I really want to see them pump out that third “Spider-Verse” movie. Instead I would like Sony to stop with these standalone villain spinoffs. These are not movies, these are corporate products designed by people trying to fill a release slot and keep the rights just a while longer. “Kraven the Hunter” is the latest example of this. If you are looking for Spider-Man connections in this film, all you are getting are secondary characters who appear in various Spider-Man properties who are poorly executed, and one scene where a ton of spiders are on screen. It is not even a good scene! Spider-Man is not in this movie. Peter Parker is not in this movie. Although the Rhino is in this movie. This time around is better than how the character was presented in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but that does not really say much.
Speaking of which, let’s talk about the CGI… This movie is chock-full of distractingly noticeable visuals. Going back to Rhino, that is one example. You can definitely tell he has fake skin, but I would not even consider that the worst CGI in this film. This film has multiple scenes containing animals, including a lion I thought looked somewhat artificial, but at most I would consider to be tolerable. The animals that stood out to me the most in terms of how offputting they looked are the buffalo. And there are a lot of them in this movie. There is this scene where this buffalo is holding steady in front of Kraven. They are in the middle of a field. When that buffalo is staying still, all that allows me to do is take in as much detail as possible to realize that the creature looks like something out of a video game. When Kraven is looking at this buffalo, he comes off like he is staring at a picture instead of something live.
Sony, please. Just stop! I have had it up to here at this point! This year is the 100th anniversary of Columbia Pictures. When it comes to celebrating it, this, “Venom: The Last Dance,” and “Madame Web” were clearly not the best ways to do it on the Marvel front. I am thankful they brought all the old “Spider-Man” movies back to theaters. I went back to watch “Spider-Man 2” and “Spider-Man 3” in the theater this year. If for whatever reason Sony decides to do some anniversary screening for “Kraven the Hunter,” I am going to give it a hard pass.
In the end, “Kraven the Hunter” sucks. Plain and simple. It is a poorly structured, badly edited, laughably acted, shoddily directed misfire that I would not recommend to anyone. I will honestly watch “Venom: The Last Dance” three more times before turning this movie on again. Yes, there are positives. The action is okay. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a good choice to play Kraven. And even though Russell Crowe plays an unlikable character, he at least acts like he is giving two squirts of urine about his role. “Kraven the Hunter” is not a movie. It is a series of scenes spliced together by a corporation to continue preserving franchise rights. If this is the last movie we see in the Sony Spider-Man Insert Clever Name Here, good riddance. I am going to give “Kraven the Hunter” a 2/10.
“Kraven the Hunter” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” and “Flow.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Kraven the Hunter?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your 2024 comic book movies ranked? What a terrible question that must be… That is like ranking your children, and you are choosing your favorite child based on which one you find the least irritating. I will admit, I did not even see “The Crow” this year. I think I dodged a bullet with that one. That said, there were plenty of awful comic book films this year to make up for whatever that one would end up being. If you have a ranking, list your top movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 