Russell Crowe

Kraven the Hunter (2024): Sony… PLEASE. STOP.

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

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.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

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?…

Courtesy of Sony Pictures – © 2024 CTMG, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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.

Courtesy of Sony Pictures – © 2024 CTMG, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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.

© Sony Pictures Entertainment

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!

Gladiator (2000): A Colossal Epic of Roman Glory

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy to have you all tune into this latest film review as we continue Ridley Scottober! A month-long event where I talk about four Ridley Scott-directed films, all for your reading pleasure. This is the second entry to the series, and it is an exciting one. “Gladiator.” I assure you, I was looking forward to watching this movie, and now I equally look forward to talking about it. And if you want to check out the first entry of Ridley Scottober, feel free to read my review for “Body of Lies.” But if you plan to stick around, please enjoy my thoughts on Ridley Scott’s 2000 Academy Award Best Picture winner.

“Gladiator” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Russell Crowe (The Insider, L.A. Confidential), Joaquin Phoenix (Clay Pigeons, 8MM), Connie Nielsen (The Devil’s Advocate, Rushmore), Oliver Reed (The Three Musketeers, Oliver!), Derek Jacobi (Hamlet, Dead Again), Djimon Hounsou (Deep Rising, Amistad), and Richard Harris (Unforgiven, Patriot Games). This film is set during the glory of Rome, and centers around General Maximumus Decimus Meridius, a general who becomes a slave who intends to seek revenge against those who brought him there in addition to killing his family.

I have a soft spot for Russell Crowe, but part of me does not know if I can legally say that, as I have not watched “Gladiator” until this review. Why? It is for the same reason I mentioned for “Body of Lies” in that review. I bought the Blu-ray years ago. In fact, I bought “Gladiator” almost a year before “Body of Lies,” but I just never got around to it until now. I had no vendetta against either of these movies, but one of the complications of being a movie collector is being able to sit down and watch the new films I buy because I have so many and sometimes want to revisit some favorite titles. One of the silver linings of this series and other review marathons I have done in the past like the “Mortal Kombat” films and some of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies like “At World’s End,” is that it helps me get around to titles that I have never seen before. In fact, “Gladiator” is one of those movies, much more so than “Body of Lies,” that when you bring up the fact of never seeing it, there is a chance someone will ask if you are a real movie fan.

I am a real movie fan. In fact those of you reading this questioning my moves for years should be jealous, because I am getting experience this film for the first time. Some may call it being late to the party, I call it a long-awaited ounce of excitement.

About 23 years after its release, “Gladiator” is still in many conversations as a master class film. It is #36 on the IMDb top 250. The film won five Oscars, including Best Picture. Over in Britain, it snatched four BAFTAs, including Best Film. There is plenty of proof to show how much the film has stood as a testament to the industry and the sword-and-sandal genre. But these are just the opinions of other people. There is only one opinion that matters here, and that is the one of the Movie Reviewing Moron. So, what did I think of “Gladiator?”

Sorry in advance… I am “glad” I saw it.

“Gladiator” goes to show the power of first impressions, because from the beginning, the film completely immersed me. The film has a story that showcases the glory of Rome, and the film itself carries a similar glory unto its own. There is so much going on inside the screen that it is insane. Between the humungous cast, with who knows how many extras, the beautiful showcasing of wides, and the magnificent on location sets, “Gladiator” is pleasing to the naked eye. I understand that at the time, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was kind of a big achievement in visual effects in terms of how deep they go with certain concepts, how real certain things looked for the time, but if I had to look back on both of these films now, I think “Gladiator” is the clear winner in terms of which is more attractive to the eye. I look back at “The Phantom Menace” and it sometimes looks like a video game. There have been worse looking effects, but still.

In fact, speaking of effects, there was one fight in particular that involves the use of tigers. It is easy to say because I am not the one making the film, but I kind of appreciated the film’s tendency to use real tigers. Now, I did question if the tigers were CGIed, which they partly were. They used bluescreen to make the tiger appear closer to the characters. That said, I admire how making “Gladiator” was probably about as dangerous as being a gladiator. I would have completely understood if this movie went down the full CGI route for the tigers, but the fact that they decided not to is a risk that paid off.

What also carries “Gladiator” are the performance. This is most notable with Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, an admirable protagonist. On the other hand, we have Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, an equally admirable antagonist. These two deliver two completely different vibes and mannerisms into their individual performances, but it does not change the fact that their work in this film are goldmines. Both of their deliveries are incredibly convincing. Even just their physicality, just having them stand around had me staring in awe.

But this film is much more than big fights and larger than life sets because I found myself immersed in the drama between the characters. Obviously there is the main story of Maximus trying to get his revenge, but in addition to that, I also found the family drama on Commodus’s side to quite compelling. Between how he gets his power, his relationship with his nephew, I found all of it intriguing. The film does a really good job at balancing various family, political, and personal dramas.

I will admit, having watched the film, there are parts of it that drag a little. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but in the scenes where people are talking, it is not necessarily that engaging. For the record, I can handle talking, I have no problem. But the scenes where people talk in this film are not as compelling as others, but there are select moments that positively stand out.

In fact, “Gladiator” as a film sort of reminds me, story-wise, of “Braveheart,” as it follows a someone trying to obtain their freedom, not to mention the freedom of others, within a backdrop of large sets and incredible violence. But much like “Braveheart,” as I watched the film, specifically the first 40, 45 minutes, I found myself getting bored and needing to pause the film to take a breather. For the record, I would contend that every minute of “Braveheart” is essential to the film. Much like how every minute of “Gladiator” is essential to it. But I would not deny that both films have pacing issues. Only difference, once I get past the first 45 minutes of “Braveheart,” the movie throttles heavily and gets good fast. “Gladiator” is very off and on with the pacing, but even in the slower moments, I still found myself the tiniest bit engaged. That said, having finished this film, this is one of those movies that if it were playing in a theater near me or if it got the IMAX treatment, I would go check it out. It looks like a magnificent theatrical experience. The cinematography is beautiful. The sets, again, are stunning. The sound editing and mixing are beyond powerful. Maybe if I watch this film in a theater, where I am less likely to be distracted, I would feel different than I do here. That said, the film is worth watching regardless and you absolutely should check it out if given the chance.

In the end, I get the hype for “Gladiator.” I had a good time with it. It is not my favorite of Ridley Scott’s films, and it is not even my favorite film of the early 2000s with huge sets and epic on location action. Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy started a year later. That said, it is one that if you asked me if I would watch it again, the answer would be an instant “yes.” I would probably put it on again at home, or again, if there were a chance to watch it in theaters, I would give it a chance. The cast is fantastic, the story is fascinating, and I must add that Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard’s score is mighty fine. I am going to give “Gladiator” an 8/10.

“Gladiator” is now available on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available on streaming and is free on Netflix for all subscribers as of this writing.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Gladiator” and want more Ridley Scott in your life, I have two more reviews coming in the Ridley Scottober series! One next week, followed by another the week after. Stay tuned. Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Last Duel,” Scott’s epic drama from 2021. 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 “Gladiator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sword and sandal movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Body of Lies (2008): A Pinch of Intrigue Mixed with a Hint of Blandness

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy October! Or should I say, Ridley Scottober! What is Ridley Scottober? Well, throughout the month of October, I will be reviewing four movies directed by Ridley Scott! I wanted to do this because in addition to getting one themed review done this year, I might as well prepare myself for Ridley Scott’s upcoming feature, “Napoleon,” which so far has won me over with the marketing. I cannot wait to see it. Let’s kick things off with the first review in the series, “Body of Lies,” Scott’s 2008 spy thriller.

“Body of Lies” is directed by Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Aviator), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), Mark Strong (Stardust, Babylon A.D.), Golshifteh Farahani (M for Mother, Half Moon), Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story, Law & Order: Criminal Intent), and Simon McBurney (The Golden Compass, Friends with Money). This film centers around a CIA agent named Roger Ferris, who attempts to track down a terrorist leader in Jordan.

I owned the Blu-ray for this film for almost six full years, and yet I have not watched this film for the first time until only last month. On the cover, there is a lot to like. Between Ridley Scott’s name behind the scenes, in addition to DiCaprio and Crowe’s names standing out for the talent on camera. All of these people, not just today, but even back in 2008 have proven their worth. In fact, “Body of Lies” is not the first rodeo between Scott and Crowe, as the two have worked together multiple times before, therefore it shows they have a solid business relationship. The same cannot be said for Leonardo DiCaprio, but I am sure both individuals brought plenty of promise to each other at the time of production. When you have these three names together, it equally brings a lot of promise to the audience.

Unfortunately though, while the promises of this film do not appear to be empty, they do not feel like they were entirely met. Now, these three individuals do an okay job in the film. But I cannot say that this film comes off as the pinnacle of any of their resumes. Whether we are talking about a collective or individual effort. All three have done better things before, all three have done better things after. In fact, of the Ridley Scott pictures I have seen, this is one of the more pedestrian ones he has made.

The movie is shot well, like many other Ridley Scott pictures. In fact, this was shot by Alexander Witt. This is the first proper cinematography credit in a feature film. Much of his work prior, not to mention after, was as a part of a second unit, but this time around he is on the front lines. The way the camera is used in “Body of Lies” for the most part provides for a bit of an uneasy vibe. After all, that is what the film should be beyond its surface, it is a soldier vs. terrorist sort of rivalry. “Body of Lies” is a film that at times puts you in the middle of the action, but it does not have enough oomph to make me run out on the streets and recommend this film to others. Although if there is one additional positive to point out, the color palette of this film perfectly establishes its overall atmosphere. It has this moody feel to it, but it supplies itself in such a way where everything around it still manages to pack in a tad of thrills and excitement. It was easy on the eyes.

Speaking of beginnings, I am pleased to report that this film is one of the early roles from Oscar Isaac, who I think is one of the better performers who has tended to lend himself to content within the spectrum of popular culture over the years. This is not his first role. Isaac was previously in films like “All About the Benjamins” and “The Nativity Story.” But I think this film shows how solid of an actor he was early in his career. Despite his first name, he is not on an Oscar level here, but he is one of the standouts in this film for me, which says something considering who the two leads happen to be.

This film stars Russell Crowe in addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, and when it comes to the former, it is clearly established that he is a dad. Particularly, one who is heavily involved in the lives of his young children. This allows for an ongoing gag where his character is doing things for his children all the while trying to balance work. We see him on the phone with Leonardo DiCaprio completing important calls all the while either doing something such as taking his kids somewhere or tending to them. While this is a great way to establish a character’s background, the amount of time spent exposing this feels like overkill. I do not know if they were trying to be funny with this tendency, after all this is a thriller, not a comedy. Sure, maybe if I were a parent myself, which I am not, maybe I could relate to this gag. And the more I think about it, seeing this sort of reminds me of seeing my mom taking calls over the years while I am in her presence given her line of work. But when it comes to this gag, it feels like too much delivered in my face. The phone gag feels like the one moment that the movie is going for humor. But because everything else, for the most part, comes off as serious, the only reaction I have as this is going on is silence. I am not saying this should not be in the movie, it serves a purpose as to establishing the characters, but I think it overembellishes itself at times.

The narrative, in terms of progression, character development, and concept, all get the job done. There is nothing remotely broken that I can point out about the film in terms of how everything in it is laid out story-wise. All the characters work. The chemistry works. The concept works. And that is the best way that I can sum up “Body of Lies.” It is not a film that is overly offensive. But it is also not a film that I walked out of thinking that it is a game changer. It is a film that I think some people would kill their first born child in order to have it be as good as it is. But when it comes to the reputation of Ridley Scott, who continues to be one of the more respected filmmakers working today, this feels kind of bland. There is a reason why nobody is talking about “Body of Lies” all these years later and instead bringing up other films like “Blade Runner” and “Thelma & Louise.” It’s because those films made a mark on its viewers culturally and managed to deliver something special. And yes, “Body of Lies” is exciting at times and there are moments where the intrigue is there, but it is not enough for me to say I would watch it again in the next few months. Maybe it would make for good background noise if I find it randomly on cable, but that is probably the extent of it.

If there are any other highlights I can point out, I did like the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Roger Ferris, and his love interest he meets along the way. Said love interest, Aisha, is played by Golshifteh Farahani. I thought the two had solid chemistry and every moment they were on screen together, they clicked. They probably had the best connection in the entire movie. Their bond was fun to watch.

In the end, “Body of Lies” is… Fine, I guess. When I bought the Blu-ray six years ago, I was quite intrigued to know that Ridley Scott was behind it. I was intrigued by the big names on the cover. There was a lot of potential. The potential here is not wasted, but it does not mean the film doesn’t underwhelm. There is nothing about this movie that makes me angry, but there is nothing about this movie that makes me think I should go back to it anytime soon. Ridley Scott is a respected filmmaker. And while this may be an okay movie for some people, this may not be the finest Ridley Scott movie. I am going to give “Body of Lies” a 6/10.

“Body of Lies” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming. As of this writing, it is available on Max to all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this first installment to the Ridley Scottober series, guess what? I’ve got three more coming! I don’t think the next review is gonna be on Saturday like this one. To be frank, I wanted to get this review out a little earlier, but I have had a pretty busy week. And I honestly have a busy week next week too, because I’m gonna be on vacation in New York, but I should have some time to whip something up. I’m gonna be on a train for three to four hours, so I can definitely do something. Maybe I will drop the review Thursday. I am kind of playing this series by ear at this point. But if you want to see another one of my reviews for a Ridley Scott movie I did a couple years back, check out my thoughts on “The Last Duel!” That should hold you all over for some time. 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 “Body of Lies?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie from a respected filmmaker that you think may be one of their inferior works? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Thor: Love and Thunder (2022): Taika Waititi’s Second, and Slightly Less Worthy, Thor Outing

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Thor: Love and Thunder” is directed by Taika Waititi, who also directed the franchise’s previous installment, “Thor: Ragnarok.” This film stars Chris Hemsworth (Men in Black: International, Rush), Christian Bale (Ford v Ferrari, Batman Begins), Tessa Thompson (Men in Black: International, Annihilation), Jaimie Alexander (Nurse Jackie, Blindspot), Taika Waititi, Russell Crowe (Gladiator, Cinderella Man), and Natalie Portman (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, V For Vendetta). This is the fourth installment to the “Thor” franchise, the 29th movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the first instance where a character in said universe gets a fourth standalone movie. In this… THORth installment, Thor reunites with Jane Foster, who is now worthy. The two join forces with Valkyrie and Korg to defeat Gorr the God Butcher, a white being whose aspiration is literally in his namesake, the widespread elimination of all gods.

MCU phase 4 is like having a demanding girlfriend. You love her, but you also want to get away from her. Although when you think you are about to leave, you just keep coming back because you cannot see yourself attached to something else. I am not saying I hate the MCU right now. I thoroughly enjoy the MCU, but as I’ve said in my reviews for “Black Widow” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” the whole universe, while still entertaining, is almost homework in disguise. When I was watching “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” I had fun, but I felt like I was being tested on how much I remembered “WandaVision.” You could almost make an argument that “Spider-Man: No Way Home” tests your memory on seven different “Spider-Man” movies at once across three different universes. To be fair though, I am not of this demographic, but I would imagine the general audience would not need to watch all of those other shows and movies in order to understand what comes after. However, their experience would only be enhanced if they did.

There is a notable audience that tends to enjoy “Thor: Ragnarok.” I consider myself a fan of the film after a couple watches. It is not up there with the original “Thor,” but anything is better than “Thor: The Dark World.” If you liked “Thor: Ragnarok,” there is a solid chance you might find joy in “Thor: Love and Thunder.” This should not come as a surprise, as Taika Waititi helmed both pictures.

Waititi may be most responsible for Thor’s current success. If we did not have “Ragnarok,” his arc in followup “Avengers” titles “Infinity War” and “Endgame” may have slightly less meaning. But the best thing about his storytelling abilities is his tendency to perfectly balance light and darkness. I saw “Thor: Love and Thunder” with my dad. When we walked out of the theater, he affirmed, grinningly, that the movie had “something for everyone.” He may be right. After all, this film has comedy, action, drama, and even horror. Without going into specifics, Christian Bale is, on occasion, utterly terrifying as Gorr the God Butcher. The MCU is often criticized for its lackluster antagonists, and phase 4 is no exception to the rule with Taskmaster from “Black Widow” being a prime example of how movies are only as good as their villains. Gorr the God Butcher is not quite Thanos, and if we are judging “Thor” villains, I even think I have a softer spot for Hela in “Ragnarok.” But when you take a character like Christian Bale’s Gorr the God Butcher and place him in a story where Zeus strips gods in public and threatens others by not allowing them to come to an orgy, it is an odd combination. But somehow they make it work.

Speaking of things that work, let’s talk about Chris Hemsworth as Thor. While it took awhile for me to warm up to Thor kind of being the butt of a joke sometimes, I have come to learn that Chris Hemsworth has tremendous comedic chops. Even when the script does him no favors like in “Ghostbusters” (2016), he still manages to give the performance his all. He will practically do anything to make the character of Thor come off as fun. It’s almost like what they are trying to do with Aquaman in the DCEU where he has a somewhat godly presence, but at the end of the day, you might want to flock to the bar with him. It is why I consider Party Thor to be one of the standout characters in the Disney+ series “What If…?”. At the same time though, this movie can be used as an example in regard to jokes going too far. And I do not mean offensive, I mean the joke tries too hard or it goes on longer than it should.

This movie has some weird, but also simultaneously hypnotizing comedy gags. Thor literally talks to his weapons. There’s even a love triangle between them. Not what I would have written but… Okay. Jane Foster spends a portion of the film trying to come up with an epic one-liner that was somewhat hit or miss. There are these goats in the film that feel less like an attempt at comedy and more so a homage to outdated Internet memes. Sure, when they were first introduced, I laughed. But as the movie went along, they became progressively less funny.

One of the biggest surprises in “Thor: Love and Thunder” prior to its release was the return of the recently mentioned Jane Foster. Natalie Portman is a great actress between her work in movies like “Black Swan” and “Annihilation.” Despite the shortcomings of the dialogue, she also did her best in the “Star Wars” prequels. Speaking of shortcomings, one of the flaws of the first two “Thor” films is that her character did not have a ton to do. I liked her better than Kat Dennings’s character, most specifically in “Thor: The Dark World,” but nevertheless. Mostly, she was almost just there to be the love interest, and that was the character’s biggest service to the story. This time, she is an equal to Thor, or Mighty Thor, as she calls herself. That is, if Thor really is the Thor he once was in say “Thor: Ragnarok” or “Avengers: Infinity War,” because he has evolved, slowly but surely, into one of the MCU’s goto gags in recent years. When he was not fighting in “Avengers: Endgame,” the movie focuses on him in a dad bod, playing “Fortnite,” and drinking heavily. That movie’s humor adds substance to its story, much like some of the jokes in “Thor: Love and Thunder.” It is weird to think how much this character has tonally evolved since 2011.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” has some good humor here and there, but I think of all the Marvel Studios films so far, this is the one I think feels the most kiddy out of them all. It is weird to say because the film has a butt shot of Chris Hemsworth and an ongoing orgy-related threat, but this was one of the first times I can remember watching an MCU film and having it feel this much like a Saturday morning cartoon. I am not saying I did not experience Saturday morning cartoon vibes in the MCU before. “Thor: Ragnarok,” the “Spider-Man” movies, and “Guardians of the Galaxy” are all great examples of this vibe. But in the case of those films, the Saturday morning cartoon vibe, minus say “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” was presented more effectively, perhaps more maturely.

While this fourth “Thor” movie flashes back to its predecessors and revisits multiple characters across various stories, I can say that a notable positive I can give to “Thor: Love and Thunder” is that it does not require any prerequisites. You can go into this movie not having seen a single “Thor,” “Avengers,” or MCU installment and have a good time. Yes, the Guardians of the Galaxy show up, but it is not like they are going to test you on the complexities of Groot’s language or something. This is a contained story from start to finish and while it may be referenced later in the MCU, it does not come off as a tale told by gatekeepers. Ultimately, “Thor: Love and Thunder” may be the most stupid fun movie the MCU has given us so far.

If have to be real though, despite this movie being stupid fun, it kind of comes with a caveat. Before “Thor: Ragnarok” came out, the “Thor” movies were comparatively serious. They had their jokey moments. The first film is a fish out of water story that lends itself to tons of humor, and it worked. The second movie had many comedy attempts, but I can only recall one or two that stuck the landing. With “Ragnarok” and now “Love and Thunder,” we have Taika Waititi’s zany touch. I was not particularly fond of the humor in “Ragnarok” when I first saw it, but after rewatching the film, I warmed up to it. Therefore, during this movie, I was looking forward to seeing what the attempts at humor could be. Compared to “Ragnarok,” they’re a bit flat. Once again, some work, but the ones that do not happen to stand out. The goats were funny the first time, but maybe not the fifth or sixth time.

When I think of “Ragnarok,” certain hysterical moments come to mind. “Get help” is one of the funniest gags in recent action movies. The chemistry between Thor and Banner, Hulked up or not, is worthy of my attention. Stan Lee’s cameo where he cuts Thor’s hair is not only crucial to the plot, but gutbusting. So, what does Taika have in mind for this movie? A rock n’ roll-infused opening action sequence where Thor, almost egomaniacally, saves the day. There’s literally a moment where he stops two vehicles from running into him by doing a split. The image is still in my mind. In the moment, I thought that split was hilarious. But it also makes me realize how dramatic of a shift these movies have taken over the years. The first two movies are mature, with the original almost successfully capturing Shakespearean drama vibes. “Thor: Ragnarok,” while still having maturity in it, contains many comedy gags that nearly conflict with some of the movie’s darker moments. The same can be said for “Love and Thunder,” but the comedy is a bigger star than before.

Note how I said bigger, not better. There’s a difference.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” reminds me of “The Fate of the Furious.” I say so because like “Love and Thunder,” I had fun with “The Fate of the Furious,” but there is a certain amount of absurdity in that film that feels more leveled up than say “Fast Five” which jumped the shark, but was comparatively believable. “Thor: Ragnarok” was a ridiculous fun time with great humor and some logic-defying, but still entertaining moments. As the saying in Hollywood goes, bigger is better. Or is it? Because if you liked “Thor: Ragnarok,” chances are that this movie has twice the silliness. While laughter is the best medicine, this movie shows that comedic overdoses may be possible.

Before we dive into the final verdict, I want to talk about the visual effects of “Thor: Love and Thunder.” I am not going to dive into the recent news regarding visual effects employees struggling to work for Marvel. That is another issue, perhaps for another time. But on the surface, most of the visual effects in this film matches the recently mentioned Saturday morning cartoon vibe. Everything is bright, colorful, vivid, and sometimes gargantuan. I do want to note though that there have been some concerns about Marvel’s visual effects as of late in movies like “Black Widow.” I think if you are in the general audience, you might not care. I will admit, it has been awhile since I have seen “Black Widow” to give a detailed comment. However, I remember some of the effects in that film are surprisingly inferior to say “Captain America: Civil War,” which came out five years before. “Thor: Love and Thunder,” for the most part, looks great. But as far as “Thor” movies go, it might be the worst looking one yet if you pinpoint select shots.

While I said I will not dive too deep into the struggles of working in visual effects, I think we are seeing a sign that the MCU is becoming too crowded and overstuffed with content. I am enjoying phase 4 of the MCU. I have yet to see a completely terrible film. One or two series were hit or miss, but others were good. “WandaVision” was a fantastic debut for the MCU on Disney+, and “Ms. Marvel” was also really charming. The MCU has so many shows and movies now that it also has so many deadlines to consider. This year we have already seen two shows that ran for six-episodes and a couple movies. That is a lot of work, and it is not over yet because “She-Hulk” quickly approaching to Disney+ and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” is scheduled to hit theaters this fall. I had fun with “Thor: Love and Thunder,” but by the standards of the MCU, this is not as good as I would hope for. Although the MCU has its occasional off day with movies like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” or “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” I just hope this is a slight bump in the road. But the MCU also did not have this much content going on at once at those times. I know some would disagree, but I would happily sacrifice all the upcoming Disney+ shows if it meant we were going to get a few consistently great MCU movies. I am sure Marvel has a plan, but is it too big of a plan? I hope not. But my worry is that the further along we go down the MCU timeline, the more signs we will get that this whole conveyer belt will unveil itself. Let’s hope that this does not happen.

In the end, “Thor: Love and Thunder” was good, but it is also my least favorite film of MCU’s phase 4. While not the worst of the “Thor” films, “Love and Thunder” nevertheless fails on arguably the same mission in which “Ragnarok” succeeded. Sure, there were a couple laughs here and there, and as far as “summer blockbusters” go, you could do far worse. Just look at “Jurassic World: Dominion.” Although “Love and Thunder” has quite a few negatives that stand out significantly. Natalie Portman was badass enough that I might want to buy a Mighty Thor Hot Toy. But I just wish I could see more of her. I wish I could have seen more of Gorr the God Butcher. This is one of the shortest Marvel movies yet, which could be beneficial to your bladder, but that’s were the benefits stop. Overall, the film feels rushed. I heard they shot some extra footage that never made it into the film, and Taika Waititi does not want to make an alternate cut with said footage, but for all I know, that could give some much needed fleshing out to certain aspects of the story. I would never want to put pressure on a filmmaker into making something they do not want to make, but as a viewer, I would be intrigued to see some of what I originally couldn’t see in some fashion. Maybe as a Blu-ray bonus feature. I am going to give “Thor: Love and Thunder” a 6/10.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” is now playing in theaters including large formats like IMAX and Dolby Cinema. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my review for “Thor: Love and Thunder,” then be on the lookout because I have more reviews coming soon! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” and “The Gray Man.” 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 “Thor: Love and Thunder?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Thor” movies? I’m a purist, I would have to go with the 2011 “Thor” directed by Kenneth Branagh. Leave your opinions down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Unhinged (2020): Why I Take Trains

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Unhinged” is directed by Derrick Borte (American Dream, London Town) and stars Russell Crowe (Gladiator, Cinderella Man), Caren Pistorius (Slow West, Mortal Engines), Gabriel Bateman (Child’s Play, Lights Out), Jimmi Simpson (Date Night, Westworld), and Austin P. McKenzie (When We Rise, Speech & Debate). This film mainly follows the actions of two characters. A mother happens to be down on her luck and is not having the best of starts to her day. Eventually, she comes across a truck sitting at a green light. She’s sitting behind it, she honks her horn, but passes the truck in anger. The guy inside the truck, played by Russell Crowe, starts following this woman and makes her life a misery, all because she refuses to give a “proper apology” to this man.

When it comes to theatrical releases in the United States, “Unhinged” came out during the first big weekend when major theaters reopened. This movie released on Friday August 21st, the weekend that many of AMC and Regal’s locations welcomed back customers. But I waited until Saturday August 29th to see this movie because I had priorities that other weekend. Plus, on an unrelated note, I just got AMC Stubs A-List, so this was a “free” movie for me. “Unhinged” comes with a rather simple, but intriguing concept, especially as someone who is able to drive a car in the United States. Many people look at driving as a privilege, and they are not wrong per se, but it is also a reason behind why society is freaking crazy. I feel like many of us are hyper-entitled whenever we get behind the wheel. We think that just because we spend five figures or something on a ride, it means we can do whatever we want. I still think the car horn is one of the most overrated inventions ever. Does it inform? Sure. But it’s also anxiety-inducing and incredibly startling. I cannot say that my local transportation system is as fine as I would want it, but at least I get the assumption that the people on transit vehicles are more willing to put up with everyone else. A little acceptance goes a long way, I’m just saying. Everyone has a bad day. Rant over!

Now, I went to “Unhinged” after spending a couple hours or so in a car. And I knew some things about this movie before going into it. I knew it was about road rage. I also knew that cars seem to have some heavy involvement in the script.

With that being said, “Unhinged” is probably the most uncomfortable movie experience I’ve had all year. And you should see it for that reason alone. This is a movie that reminds me of why I hate driving sometimes. Not only are you operating a vehicle that society is putting over its own environment, but sometimes the people inside other cars can lose their mind from time to time. Granted, I haven’t many bad experiences as a driver, but sometimes it scares me to know how much my own country is attached to personal vehicles. I will also point out that when it comes to performances so far this year, Russell Crowe might have given my favorite thus far. He plays a guy who seems pretty chill, but kind of has a sinister side to him. I really like his portrayal of the character of “The Man.” Wow, no wonder I didn’t know his character’s name! That’s his credit according to what I saw on IMDb.

In… Actuality… Russell Crowe plays a character named Tom Cooper. Nevertheless!

This movie goes on for an hour and a half, and I think this happened to be the perfect runtime for a movie like this. The concept is to the point and doesn’t require any expansion. The movie also does a really good job at not wasting any time and completely focusing on the main subject matter at hand. I don’t think there is one scene that should be taken out for reasons having to do with coherence. Nothing feels too self-indulgent or unnecessary. I will say though, and this may have part to do with what I saw from the movie’s marketing and not just the movie itself. Even though the supporting characters properly serve the plot at all times, I don’t think I will remember all of them that well. They were competently performed by their individual actors, but still, when I look back at this movie, it’s almost like they’re pawns or really JUST there to make one of the two characters behave a certain way. Granted, that is a proper definition of a “supporting character,” they’re not supposed to have all the spotlight. I just wish they were more memorable or had a bigger pinch of personality.

One thing I will say though about the main story of the film, I agree with both the protagonist and antagonist. I even disagree with both characters at times. I enjoy movies like this and it’s why I view “Avengers: Infinity War” to be the best movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In the case of “Unhinged,” our main protagonist, Rachel, needs to get where she needs to go, but she has Russell Crowe standing, or more appropriately, driving in her way. When she gets angry, I understand her, I get what she’s going through, but it also brings me back to the wish that people would be more patient with others behind the wheel. Everyone’s got a story, you just haven’t heard them all yet. Soon thereafter, Russell Crowe, who seems nice, recognizes that a lot of people are impatient and they lose control in today’s society. So he wants an apology, which again, is understandable. I want what’s best for Rachel, but I do feel that she needs to be careful when talking to other people. She’s a flawed protagonist, and I was admittedly a bit skeptical as to whether or not I’d end up liking her, but I felt Rachel had a good presence by the end of the film. And of course, Russell Crowe turns into the biggest dick in the world, so of course I rooted for Rachel.

“Unhinged” is one of the first movies to release in an effort to welcome customers back to the theater. And let me just say, I would probably have a good time watching “Unhinged” at home. It would probably be a delight to put on my TV, but I welcome it as a major theatrical release because I imagine that this is one of those movies, kind of similar to a lot of Marvel or “Star Wars” projects, that gives a certain feeling in the theater that cannot be replicated at home. I was on the edge of my seat, and I thought this movie made me a bit more unsettled than any other experience I had this year. Maybe if I watched this movie at home I would have felt rather similar to the way I felt after watching it in the theater, but that is hard to tell at this point. Point is, if a theater is open near you and “Unhinged” is playing, see it if you feel safe!

In the end, “Unhinged” packs a wallop! I really enjoyed watching this movie as a theatrical experience. The plot is very simple, but I understood the motivations behind each character. I was able to relate to them. Again, I think some of the supporting characters will end up fading from my memory, but it does not take away from the swell time I had watching this movie. It’s fast-paced, dark, and occasionally heart-racing. Go watch it! I’m going to give “Unhinged” a 7/10.

Thanks for reading this review! This Tuesday, I’m going to see “Tenet,” in a theater, the way it was meant to be seen! I still wish I could have a closer spot playing it in 70mm, but I will happily support the theater industry at this time. Early access screenings begin tonight in the U.S., but I decided to go tomorrow for a couple reasons. So with that being said, I hope that the movie is fantastic! I will say, I’m also seeing it again Thursday in IMAX, so if I don’t have the review up by Thursday, it may be because I need to pick up some things I missed, or because I want to judge the IMAX-shot scenes in this movie. If you want to see my review for “Tenet,” be sure to follow Scene Before, that way you’ll be notified when the review goes up, and you can stick around for more content as well! Also, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Unhinged?” What did you think about it? Or, have you been to the movies recently? Describe your experience! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!