Sci-fi

Borderlands (2024): Boring Blands

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Borderlands” is directed by Eli Roth (Thanksgiving, The House with a Clock in Its Walls) and stars Cate Blanchett (Carol, Thor: Ragnarok), Kevin Hart (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Ride Along) Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, The Super Mario Bros. Movie), Edgar Ramírez (Jungle Cruise, The 355), Ariana Greenblatt (65, Barbie), Florian Munteanu (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Creed II), Gina Gershon (Showgirls, Snoops), and Jamie Lee Curtis (Freaky Friday, Halloween), this film is based on the video game of the same name and centers around a team who tries to save a girl who holds the key to unimaginable power.

Video game adaptations have seen a bit of a high point in recent years, whether it is the growing success of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies, the high ratings of HBO’s “The Last of Us,” or the massive box office records set by “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” And there are plenty more adaptations on the way. All of those properties are seeing follow-ups in the future. The “Mortal Kombat” movie released in 2021 is getting a sequel. Sony is currently making a live-action film adaptation based on “The Legend of Zelda.” Heck, they are making a “Minecraft” movie, and it is going to be live-action! Interesting choice there… Video game adaptations have come a long way. Many people will tell you that there have not been many great ones. Though a select few seem to have a continued following like the 1995 “Mortal Kombat.”

This is where we come to “Borderlands,” which is based on a game that I have never played. Granted, I have heard of it before walking into the theater, but I could never tell you what it is about, who the primary characters are, or even how good the story is. Interestingly, after seeing this movie, I barely have the stamina to tell you what it is about, who the primary characters are, or even how good the story is.

Hint, on that last part, it sucks!

The story behind “Borderlands” plays out like a boring video game objective. This movie feels as if I was playing a video game and was stuck on a level that is longer than life. Granted, it is somewhat well paced at times and fairly short, but just because it is well paced and short, does not mean it is sweet. Because all the substance within the short runtime is a discombobulated mess.

As I write this review, one of the films that comes to mind that “Borderlands” reminds me of is “Red Notice.” That movie is so notoriously bad and a potential reason why it likely even saw the light of day in the first place is because of star power. Granted, it likely cost a crapton of money, but if you were an executive and had the opportunity to sell a movie with Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, and Gal Gadot on the poster, I am sure you will take it. These are three of the biggest stars in the world and it almost does not matter how good the script is at that point. “Borderlands” is led by several stars including Cate Blanchett, Jack Black, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Hart, and Ariana Greenblatt. That is a stacked cast, and if you were to tell me they’d all be in a movie together, I would at least be curious about it. But when it comes to “Borderlands,” curiosity threw this cat into an incinerator.

In fact, you know what is funny? I said how this movie on paper, without a script, without a treatment, without any idea of how it is going to go, could most definitely be appealing just from imagining what an ensemble poster could look like. You know who thought the same thing? One of the films stars, Jamie Lee Curtis! Why is she in this movie? Because at heart, she is a fangirl. Perhaps not of the “Borderlands” franchise, but she has mentioned the reason why she took the part she had in “Borderlands” is due to Cate Blanchett being in the movie. Look, if I were an actor and I were pitched a movie, and you told me I was going to work with Cate Blanchett, I would be there in a chicken suit for all I care. But it does not change the fact that this dynamic duo of actresses are somewhat miscast. These two performers, to some degree, have aged past their respective parts. Jamie Lee Curtis in particular stands out when I say this. I looked up the character she plays based on how she is presented in the games, and while Curtis somewhat resembles her physically, she definitely looks younger in the source material. The same can be said for Blanchett. I hate saying this because both of these women are not just good at what they do, they are a couple of my favorite performers working today. And their recent outings continue to prove that like Curtis’s “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and Blanchett’s “Tar.” Are their performances in “Borderlands” at least worthy of a thumbs up? I guess?… I would say they are tolerable. As much as I did not love the writing for “Borderlands,” I think Blanchett in particular does the best she can as a character who clearly does not want to be doing what she is doing.

But while Cate Blanchett and Jamie Lee Curtis are busy bringing some of the superior performances to the movie, there is one actor on the cast that has given a voiceover performance so annoying that even Jar Jar Binks is looking at this character and saying, “MEESA GETTING A HEADACHE!” Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, Jack Black as Claptrap. Much like Jar Jar Binks in “The Phantom Menace,” Claptrap is obnoxious, talkative, and spews attempts at humor that would be better executed if it were in a program presented for toddlers. Again, Jamie Lee Curtis and Cate Blanchett do an okay job, but the more I hear Jack Black’s voice here, the more I question how the heck he was even cast in the first place. I hate saying this because I like Jack Black, and he has proven time and time again with the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise that he can unleash not just good, but great voiceover work. I do not doubt that he probably fulfilled the vision the director was probably aiming for at times. But if that is the case, than that vision needs a trip to LensCrafters. Just to paint a picture of how much Jack Black’s character got on my nerves, there is a scene where we see his character getting shot. If you saw the movie you likely know which one I am talking about. In a lot of cases, when I see a character get shot, it is sometimes a dramatic or emotional moment. When Claptrap gets shot, I was ecstatic. I was cheering. I did not care if those bullets killed him. If anything he is getting what he deserves for nearly destroying my brain.

It is really sad to see Jack Black give a performance like the one he gives here, especially considering he killed it in another video game adaptation, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” as Bowser. He was easily my favorite part of the film. Apparently, Black is not done with bringing video game characters to the screen, because he also is seemingly playing Steve in the upcoming “Minecraft” movie. Hopefully Black can come back from his performance as Claptrap, because to say it was harder to sit through than a race between turtles is probably the understatement of the year.

“Borderlands” is kind of like “Guardians of the Galaxy” if the people making the movie decided to suck all the fun out of it. There are no memorable songs that are stuck in my head by the time I leave the theater. All the attempts at humor are stale. The movie has a team of misfits, but none of them have chemistry. If anything, you are stuck with a lead whose attitude very much screams “I’m getting too old for this,” an annoying teen played by Ariana Greenblatt, and a surprisingly unfunny character played by Kevin Hart. Heck, even if Kevin Hart is not in the best movie like “The Wedding Ringer” he can still get a laugh out of me. Not this time around! “Borderlands” is polished and colorful, but is lacking a story with some of polish of its own. If it does not feel been there done that, then it certainly feels excruciatingly snore-inducing.

I was also marveled as to how this film looked at times. Frankly, it has the most unrealistic green screen and special effects I have seen in years. There are certain moments and effects that took me out of the movie, and if they did not, they definitely made me die inside. If you think Cate Blanchett in an orange wig is hard to buy, just wait until you see some of the backgrounds this movie provides. In some ways, this movie does resemble the art style and presentation of the video game. I will give it credit where it is due. But just because the movie is based on a video game, does not mean the backgrounds should look like they are out of a video game. I remember watching the 2020 “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie and seeing the Green Hill Zone on screen. While I could definitely tell there is a fantastical outlook to the place, within the context of the movie and everything else in it, I was able to buy this world. When I look at Pandora in “Borderlands,” I am immediately taken out of the movie. I cannot buy what this movie is trying to sell me.

The video game movie curse seems to be dying. Granted, I cannot think of a perfect video game adaptation. While “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” is faithful to the games, it is one of the most cliché productions of the past few years. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a lot of fun, but definitely predictable. “Gran Turismo,” if you can technically call it an adaptation, was a joyous experience, but does not reinvent the wheel in terms of the story, and is sometimes bogged down by product placement. “Borderlands” feels like a product of years past. Specifically the years when many people were waiting for a video game movie they can be excited about but we did not quite reach that point yet. The script is awful, the backgrounds are as realistic as a high school play, the story is unmemorable, and worst of all, my time was surely wasted.

In the end, I had little expectations for “Borderlands” as I was going in, but little did I know what I would be in for. Much like this year’s “Argylle,” “Borderlands” excels at getting the best cast possible, but it equally excels in wasting each member in the ensemble. To add to the discombobulation of this disasterpiece, the film had reshoots a couple years after it went into production, but its director, Eli Roth did not even return to oversee it. So the studio brought in “Deadpool” director Tim Miller. So while I do not know who to wholly blame for certain things that happened in the film, I can easily say as far as Lionsgate is concerned, to call “Borderlands” a misfire would be generous. The writing is some of the worst of the year. The look of the film is atrocious. I am sure that if Cate Blanchett were not living through a pandemic or perhaps friends with Eli Roth since they did “The House with a Clock in Its Walls” together, she would have never signed onto this project. Just one moron’s theory… Again, if I were an actor and you told me Cate Blanchett was going to be in the same project as me, I would be stoked. That said, if I knew what the end product would be, then chances are I would question myself before actually taking on said project. As far as I am concerned, I surely hope “Borderlands” has zero chance of respawning on a screen in front of me ever again, and I am going to give the so-called movie a 1/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Skincare,” “My Old Ass,” “Reagan,” and “It Ends with Us.” 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 “Borderlands?” What did you think about it? Or, if you were cast in a movie, who is an actor that you would want to work with, even if you knew that said movie was going to be terrible? For me, one person that comes to mind is Seth MacFarlane. I have wanted to meet him for years so it would be a dream come true. Let me know in the comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Deadpool & Wolverine (2024): The MCU’s First R-Rated Outing Heavily Delivers on Fan Service, Action, and Humor

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Deadpool & Wolverine” is directed by Shawn Levy (Free Guy, Night at the Museum) and stars Ryan Reynolds (Free Guy, The Adam Project), Hugh Jackman (The Greatest Showman, Reminiscence), Emma Corrin (My Policeman, A Murder at the End of the World), Morena Baccarin (Firefly, Greenland), Rob Delaney (Tom & Jerry, Ron’s Gone Wrong), Leslie Uggams (American Fiction, Empire), Aaron Stanford (12 Monkeys, Nikita), and Matthew Macfadyen (Quiz, Succession). In this film, Deadpool is invited to have a place in the sacred timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but he instead tries to find a variant of Wolverine to save his own universe.

There are no words in cinema in which I have opposed to a greater degree over the past number of years than comic book movie fatigue. And yes, comic book movies are cinema. End of story. While there have been bumps in the road in the comic book movie and television genre, I must admit that I have never once felt the need to jump ship. Despite the DCEU coming to an end, the final efforts of said cinematic universe were all quite fun from “Shazam: Fury of the Gods” to “The Flash” to “Blue Beetle.” That cinematic universe also gave me my favorite DC movie of all time, “The Suicide Squad,” which spun off into the incredible TV show “Peacemaker.” On the Marvel side, I do not give two squirts of urine about what anyone says here… I liked every MCU movie since “Endgame.”

Now the genre has had its downsides in recent years like “Wonder Woman 1984,” “Morbius,” “Madame Web,” and as much as I enjoy the MCU movies, I think some of the Disney+ originals pale in comparison. Although “WandaVision” is must-see TV. That said, the genre has delivered way more positives than negatives for me over the years, so I was excited for “Deadpool & Wolverine.” I love the first couple of “Deadpool” movies, I was excited to see what Kevin Feige, Ryan Reynolds and Shawn Levy can do with an R-rated MCU flick, so it was definitely going to bring some novelty to this ongoing saga. Admittedly, I never grew up with Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine unlike say Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man. “X-Men” was just never a part of my household at the time. But I have seen a few of those movies, which I have mostly enjoyed. I think Jackman does a good job in the role, he is a fine actor, so it was going to be fun to see what he would bring to this role one more time.

Safe to say, “Deadpool & Wolverine” was one of my most anticipated films of 2024. So how did it turn out?

It is one of the best comic book movies of the past few years.

To some of you reading this, such a statement may either mean a lot or a little to you. Because again, unlike some of you, I have not been fatigued by this sub-genre. But I honestly think if some of you reading this were done with Marvel movies or comic book movies in general, this film could revitalize some of your interest in that realm of film. Now, is it the best MCU movie ever? No it is not. In fact, the biggest problem I have with “Deadpool & Wolverine” is actually the biggest problem I had with many other MCU titles. Particularly the villain. Though I will say the villain this time around is a bit of a step up from “The Marvels,” which again, I had fun with.

But this movie is not about the villain, it is about the heroes. It is about two comic book icons coming together at long last. In fact, this movie, to my lack of surprise, reminds me of “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” If you read my review for that film, you would know that I refer to that it as a love-letter to the Spider-Man character, and the multiple eras such a character represents. That is what “Deadpool & Wolverine” is in a different way. Because this film not only serves as a love letter to the Deadpool and Wolverine characters. It also manages to sprinkle some love to an era of comic book movies that means a quite a bit to a certain group of people, even if they managed to vary on their level of success and failure.

What makes the release of “Deadpool & Wolverine” such a big deal is that it is one of the rare attempts at Disney making an R-rated film. This is a concept that is rather novel to the brand, particularly in its main line of films. Sure, Disney used to release films under Touchstone Pictures, which has its share of R-rated titles. Another defunct label of Disney’s, Hollywood Pictures, also had films with R-ratings. And now they have 20th Century Studios, which has not stopped with its mature slate. But this is the first R-rated Marvel Studios title. I honestly thought we would never see this day. Sure, DC has some R-rated titles in its own cinematic universe like “Birds of Prey” and “The Suicide Squad,” but neither of those films were particularly successful at the box office. That said, the first film came out just before a pandemic and the second film simultaneously released on HBO Max during a time when some people were weary about going to the cinema, so there is that. Yes, DC also has “Joker,” which was the first R-rated film to make a billion dollars at the box office, but I did not think something as popular as the MCU, which attracts a large audience, would have the guts to make something like this. In fact, if I were an executive at Disney, I too, would be somewhat weary of doing an R-rated film there. I would love it from a creative perspective, but from a financial and brand perspective, it is tough to justify.

But this film unleashes all the creativity it can, and judging by the box office total so far, it only helped the film financially. Conceptually, this film is quite clever. It manages to take certain portions of the Fox “X-Men” universe and sprinkle them over with things from the MCU and blend them together perfectly. This film has the DNA of the past two “Deadpool” movies, but it manages to make the universe feel more epic. It is a perfect hybrid of your typical MCU movie and your typical “Deadpool” movie. The tones never feel like they are clashing. It is like they took the first couple “Deadpool” movies and decided to put more money on the screen. The action sequences are incredibly stylistic and thrilling. Each one is as sweet and flashy as the last. This film has a marvelous opening sequence that could potentially make for the most exciting first five to ten minutes the MCU has ever done.

Also like “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” this film is also filled with moments that if you see this in a theater at a certain time and place, will likely result in audiences cheering and applauding. Only thing is, with “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” I was somewhat able to predict pretty much all the surprises that happened to be in those movies. The “Deadpool” movies have repeatedly mastered its marketing campaigns, and this one is no exception because it kept so many things under wraps to the point where certain moments happened that caught me totally off guard throughout the runtime. I would love to talk about some of these events, but I will let those of you who have not seen this movie enjoy the magic of checking them out yourselves.

But as for the things we know going in, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman have perfect chemistry as the titular characters. Knowing their relationship behind the scenes, this is a film that despite the existence of “Logan,” felt like a passion project these two wanted to do for years. I do not know what it took to get Hugh Jackman to play Wolverine one more time, but knowing how fun it is to watch these two together, it was worth it. This is primarily Deadpool’s story. The movie starts with Deadpool, features the character prominently in situations where he has to make tough choices and fight for the people he loves, but Wolverine gets a lot of screentime and every minute is well utilized.

Despite this being Deadpool’s story, we do not really get a lot of time with the characters from the past Deadpool movies like Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Vanessa, Yukio… They are in the movie. But their roles in the film are minor. They do not have a ton to do on screen even though they play a part in the plot and outcome.

In fact, on the more mainline “X-Men” side, Wolverine is for the most part, the main character we see in regards to that universe. That is not necessarily a bad thing because the film focuses more on making a robust story for its main duo rather than shoehorning as many X-Men characters as possible. It feels more like a movie than a stale reunion special. The film honors the legacies of both of these characters while giving them both another story for audiences to love. Maybe even Hugh Jackman’s swan song… Until he decides to make a crapton more money.

As mentioned, “Deadpool & Wolverine” comes with many of the successes and failures of the other MCU films. While the titular characters shine, Cassandra Nova, played by Emma Corrin is a semi-lackluster villain. Now, she is not all bad. During the first half of the film, I did not have any problems with her. I thought she was rather menacing and intimidating. I think they did a good job at introducing her. But by the end of the film, she came off as cliche-riddled and power hungry. There was not as much depth as I would have wanted for a character like this. In fact, I am rather surprised to say that I left this movie liking Matthew Macfadyen’s performance as Paradox a bit more in comparison. Not that I think Macfadyen’s a bad actor, he is great. But despite his role being smaller than Cassandra Nova’s in the grand scheme of things, his scenes are more memorable on top of his charisma and personality.

This film is not just a potential revitalization of the MCU, it is not just a finale for the Fox “X-Men” universe, it is not just a love letter to several comic book movies that came before, but it is also one that is not afraid to make fun of the industry. If you have followed either of the cinematic universes this movie represents, know a little bit about how filmmaking works, or even followed movie news over the past number of years, this film may be able to hit you in some way. There is one moment where Deadpool sort of highlights the collective reaction of the ongoing multiverse saga, which even as someone who appreciates said saga, it made me laugh. This is arguably the funniest movie in the MCU. Humor-wise, it is up there with the first “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Avengers: Infinity War.” Only thing, I would say those movies have jokes that stick the landing perfectly for general audiences, whereas the humor in “Deadpool & Wolverine,” while still likely to get large crowds laughing, is sometimes a bit more niche and maybe not for everyone. “Deadpool & Wolverine” is full of comedy gold from fantastic fourth wall breaks, excessive, yet well placed f-bombs, and some brilliant visual gags. There was no shortage of cackles in my screening. And if you go see this film in a crowded theater, I am sure you will have the same experience.

As far as the MCU goes, I would have say that “Deadpool & Wolverine” is definitely one of the better films. It is easily my favorite MCU installment post-“Endgame.” In the case of the proper “Deadpool” movies, I would still say the first film is my favorite, but this is a slight step up from “Deadpool 2.” I think it is a little bit funnier, a bit more action-packed, and has more memorable moments. “Deadpool & Wolverine” comes off as the most ambitious movie of its trilogy, and it shows. This has a slightly different feel from the past two “Deadpool” movies but manages to maintain what makes those predecessors great. If this is your genre, you have to see this movie as soon as possible. It is one that if you have friends or more mature family members in your circles, you have to watch with them just to see their reaction. Can you take a 10 year old to this movie? That’s a hard sell… Depends on the 10 year old. There are some things that are a bit tamer in this film compared to the original, but it is filled to the brim with excessive violence and foul language. I will let the world’s parents judge for themselves on whether or not they want to be remembered as the cool cats who gave their kids the memory of a lifetime.

As an entry point to this genre of movies and the MCU, there are definitely more accessible films like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Iron Man” or even “Ant-Man,” but I would say you’d be okay should you decide to skip the first two “Deadpool” movies, the “X-Men” films, or any of the MCU installments. Like all the other MCU followups, it definitely helps watching the past entries or even briefly brushing up on Wikipedia as you may be able to pick up on some nuance. But you can still watch “Deadpool & Wolverine” on its own and have a good time. The movie is stacked with fan service, so if you are hyperactively into these movies, chances are you will lose your mind in select moments of this latest installment. But if you are simply looking for a killer time at the movies, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is practically guaranteed to give you just that.

In the end, “Deadpool & Wolverine” is a blast that honors the past of the comic book movie genre. There is not a lot that I can complain about when it comes to the overall experience of this movie other than maybe how they handled the villain. But again, despite Cassandra Nova’s flaws, I will not deny that she had her moments and Emma Corrin did an okay job playing the character. If there is one movie that you should make an effort to see this summer, look no further than “Deadpool & Wolverine.” Great action, killer soundtrack, fun chemistry between the leads… It is a riot! “Deadpool & Wolverine” is now my favorite movie of 2024, and I am going to give it a 9/10.

“Deadpool & Wolverine” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review. My next reviews are going to be for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” 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 “Deadpool & Wolverine?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Marvel movie from the 20th Century Fox era? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024): Anya Taylor-Joy is Fast and Furious in This Mad Max Prequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is directed by George Miller (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) and stars Anya Taylor-Joy (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The New Mutants), Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Tom Burke (Mank, The Souvenir), and Alyla Browne (Sting, Three Thousand Years of Longing) in a prequel film that follows its titular character’s origins throughout various stages of her life, before she meets Mad Max.

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is one of those films that had my interest ever since it was first announced. And as much as I know people love Charlize Theron’s take on the character back in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” I was very much excited to see what Anya Taylor-Joy could do with the role. She is one of the hottest names in Hollywood right now, racking up several projects that have given her a diverse resume. Everything from Jane Austen adaptations like “Emma.,” to visionary horror titles like “Last Night in Soho,” to a video game adaptation that has become one of the decade’s most mainstream titles, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” I am proud to say that when it comes to Anya Taylor-Joy’s take on the Furiosa character, I was not disappointed. Like all of her other roles, she plays the part well. Despite this movie having a female protagonist, this movie feels pretty masculine. And I mean that in a positive way. As I watched this movie, I was on a bit of a high, and Anya Taylor-Joy is the drug that fueled it.

In fact, all the actors in this film are great. None of them feel out of place. Not only does Taylor-Joy provide a superstar outing as Furiosa, but her younger variant, played by Alyla Browne, also shines bright. Lachy Hulme does a good job as Immortan Joe, who we previously saw played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in “Fury Road,” rest in peace. In fact, that’s not his only role in the film, because he is credited with playing Rizzdale Pell, a gang member serving under this film’s most enjoyable character to watch, Chris Hemsworth’s Dementus.

They say a movie is only as its good as its villain, so I am happy to report that Dementus will end up being one of my favorite on-screen villains I have seen this year. While Chris Hemsworth is playing a different character entirely, it is safe to say that he is putting the “mad” in “Mad Max.” He’s over the top, bombastic, and kind of wonderfully demented. Sometimes he is so rage-filled it is kind of artistic. There is something beautiful about it. Also, I love how he has a line twisting a classic phrase where he utters, “Lady and gentlemans.” Chef’s kiss.

And much like Hemsworth’s Thor sometimes, I can say Dementus’ beard game in this movie is strong. Just look it it. I have grown out my facial hair quite a bit from time to time, but I cannot say I have ever grown a beard like the one Dementus has. Adding to the beautiful rage of this character, Hemsworth himself has something to say to back that up. Speaking with Variety, Hemsworth goes on about his experience in the makeup chair…

“Twas justifiably irritated by the end of it. That really helped my performance-there was a nice amount of pent-up rage simmering under the surface.”

Take this as a lesson kids. If you work hard enough, and learn some patience by sitting in a chair, you too can entertain tons of people by becoming a bit of a maniac. Inspiring stuff.

That said, looking back at “Furiosa,” this movie ends on a bit of an interesting note. I do not want to spoil everything that happens in this film, but if you are a novice to this franchise, I will remind you once again this is a prequel to “Mad Max: Fury Road.” A film that, and I apologize to the thousands of cinephiles I am inevitably going to irritate, I find to be a tad overhyped.

Now to find that flame shield…

Nevertheless, I recognize that a lot of work went into “Mad Max: Fury Road,” not to mention a lot of money. Based on research via IMDb, the total budget of the film comes out to $150 million. Despite being older and less expensive, it still looks better than some of the more recent Marvel projects for example, including Hemsworth’s own “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Just so we have the statistics in place, I will remind you that “Furiosa” cost more than “Fury Road,” specifically $168 million. For the record, Wikipedia says “Fury Road” cost anywhere between $154.6–185.2 million, but if I had to compare “Fury Road” and “Furiosa” side by side, I would say that “Fury Road,” depending on what the actual budget is, feels like the slightly bigger bang for the studio’s buck. It is also a slightly better movie as a matter of fact. Story-wise, both of these movies do not have the most Shakespearean of plots or happenings. They are pretty simple when it comes to their concepts. And honestly, in the case of “Furiosa,” I sometimes wish I were more interested in some of the goings on that we witnessed on screen. “Furiosa” has a runtime of 148 minutes, and I truly felt that runtime. I have no problems with movies going on for that long. In fact on paper, one of the pros of having such a long runtime for a movie like this is that we get to see some pretty cool extended action sequences. There are some action scenes that go on for quite a bit and had me glued to the screen. But substance-wise, “Furiosa” feels kind of thin. Does this movie try to deliver a fun story? I guess. But other than seeing Furiosa grow up, I did not feel as engaged with this film as I wanted to. That said, one thing I was engaged by was seeing Furiosa’s exposure to certain torturous acts, and how much said acts shaped the perspective of the character throughout the film.

But this film ends on an interesting, yet rather fitting note. I do not think this is a spoiler. If you think otherwise, you do you. But the end credits for “Furiosa” start with a few minutes of clips essentially detailing “Mad Max: Fury Road.” After all, again, this film leads into that one. Though it got me thinking… Upon leaving the movie, I did not say I wanted to go back and watch “Furiosa” a second time. If anything, the credits made me think I should potentially revisit “Fury Road” instead. While “Furiosa” is well done in its own right, it made me wish I were watching something better. I have seen “Fury Road” twice, and even though I think it is not the masterpiece some call it, I recognize there is plenty to like about it. And I think there is more to like about “Fury Road,” than “Furiosa.” Sure, “Furiosa” could stand as its own movie, but at the end of the day, it doubles as the world’s most robust, compelling advertisement for “Mad Max: Fury Road.”

Much like “Fury Road,” “Furiosa” tends to use star power to sell itself between the casting of Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth. However, from an effects perspective, the money is definitely there, but it does not mean the quality is there. What makes the look of “Fury Road” so appealing at times is despite knowing it is a movie, it tends to look as raw and lifelike as it could in such an environment on display. In “Furiosa,” there are a fair share of effects that look like they could belong in a blockbuster movie, but they feel like they belong more in a demo for the sake of showing off a new piece of tech. There is a lot less verisimilitude with these effects this time around. While “Furiosa” does not have the worst special effects I have seen, they are a significant step down compared to its predecessor.

And that’s the thing about this movie. It reminds me a lot of “Fury Road,” but it does not do anything as exciting as it. Plus between some long buildup, some forgettable characters, and scenes that probably did not need to go on as long as they did, I do not think “Furiosa” is worth watching a second time. How does it compare to the other “Mad Max” installments? I will be real, I have not seen any of the other ones. I want to, I just have not had the time. I could tell George Miller made the movie the way he intended. I just wish it were better.

In the end, “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” has plenty of positives. But there is not a lot in this movie, maybe other than Hemsworth as the villain, that truly stands out. Do not get me wrong. Anya Taylor-Joy does a good job as the title character. The film, despite some overpolishing, is easy on the eyes. The color palette of the film is appealing. I say this film looks like an over the top tech demo, and I meant such a thought as a bit of a dig. But it does not mean the film all looks bad. Also, if the Oscars were tomorrow, “Furiosa” would definitely be nominated for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. But when all is said and done, I would rather watch “Mad Max: Fury Road” one more time as opposed to watching “Furiosa” again. I am going to give “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” a 6/10.

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is now playing in theatres and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Thelma,” the new movie starring June Squibb as an elderly woman who tries to get her money back from scammers. Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” 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 “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga?” What did you think about it? Or, which Furiosa-centric story do you think is superior? “Fury Road” or “Furiosa?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024): We Came, We Saw, But the Movie Only Barely Exceeded Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ghostbsuters: Frozen Empire” is directed by Gil Kenan (Monster House, Poltergeist) and this film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ant-Man), Carrie Coon (The Leftovers, Fargo), Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, It), Mckenna Grace (The Young and the Restless, Gifted), Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, The Big Sick), Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, A.P. Bio), Ernie Hudson (The Basketball Diaries, Quantum Leap), and Annie Potts (Toy Story, Young Sheldon). This movie traces back to the franchise’s origin point, New York City, and centers around the Ghostbusters’ quest to uncover the connections to an ancient artifact and to keep civilization from being trapped under ice.

Here is a fun fact about Scene Before, “Ghostbusters” literally got this blog started. I am serious. Because I started this blog in 2016 as part of a high school project. One of the big talking points at the time was the trailer for the “Ghostbusters” reboot, which I did not enjoy. Then months later, one of the big talking points was the movie connected to that trailer, which I did not enjoy. Like, really did not enjoy. In fact, when I did my worst films of the 2010s list, that was #1, and I stand by it. Could that movie have worked? Of course it could have! After seeing “The LEGO Movie,” I am under the impression any movie can work. But 2016’s “Ghostbusters” was not funny. The CGI was off-putting. And it is a waste of a lot of people’s talent. When I look back at the film, part of me hates talking about it. Because if I simply say I did not like the movie, there is probably someone out there pointing their finger at me and telling me that I hate women. I am all for women empowerment. Look at how epic “Wonder Woman” was the following year. I just wish this movie were handled better.

When “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was announced, I was quite excited. I thought it was a little soon for a new “Ghostbusters” outing, but the trailers seemed to successfully balance nostalgia with an immersive, adventurous vibe. It was also nice to see the franchise outside of New York City for once. Unfortunately, I did not get to review the movie due to time constraints. But if you want my quick thoughts, I had a ball with it. I liked the new characters. Paul Rudd was great in his role. The sound design was quite good. And the action sequences were fun. The movie was a delight. The film by no means rewrote what it meant to be a box office success, but it was enough of a hit to justify another movie, in this case “Frozen Empire.”

Just to give a quick ranking of the “Ghostbusters” movies before this one came out, I would have to say the first one is easily the best. “Afterlife” comes in second. “Ghostbusters II” takes third place for me. And again, it pains me just mentioning it, but I have to be honest, my least favorite film of the franchise is the disconnected “Ghostbusters” 2016. So where does “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” rank amongst these movies?

Honestly, smack dab in the middle.

In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an easy thumbs up. There is plenty to like about this sequel. But there is not a lot to love. Does the movie have decent nostalgia? Sure. Does the movie have a good concept? Sure. Is the humor on point? Sure, but it is not as strong as the original movie. Does it handle the newer characters well? Some better than others. This is the one thing about this movie, there are a lot of positives, but when I say positives, I do so knowing that these positives may not be worthy enough for me to go back and watch the movie a second time in the next few months.

Sorry to spoil a movie that is a couple years old, but in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” the four original “Ghostbusters” made an appearance towards the end of the film. And yes, I said four. They found a way to inject the late Harold Ramis into the project. In this installment, three of those four are back, and around for a bit longer. Ernie Hudson and Dan Aykroyd have more notable impacts on the story, but Bill Murray manages to squeeze himself in at some point.

One thing I have noticed about the “Ghostbusters” franchise, at least in the movies, is that all of the ghosts are not on the busters’ side. Obviously, if your crew is about killing ghosts, of course, you are going to not play nice with them. But this movie introduces a ghost character who I thought served as a nice antithesis to that idea to some degree. Specifically, Melody played by Emily Alan Lind. Throughout the film we see young Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) develop a connection with her that drives the plot forward significantly. The two have good chemistry and I like seeing them onscreen together. Some elements as to how their bond starts may come off as far-fetched or convenient, but at the same time, it does make sense in a franchise where the Statue of Liberty basically goes “Night at the Museum” during the climax of “Ghostbusters II.”

Although that subplot does not even bring forth the most convenient, perhaps out of left field part of the movie. Because that honor, if you can call it that, goes to something we see out of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, Nadeem Razmaadi (left center). As much as I enjoyed the climax of this movie, if there is one thing I did not like about it, there is a moment where we see Nadeem do something that had me going “Why?” The moment did not feel authentic. Again, I understand, it is “Ghostbusters.” The franchise has jumped the shark before. But I feel the franchise is at its best when there is a balance between reality and fantasy. This leans too far into the fantasy route for me.

This is not to suggest you have to like one movie over the other, but I have a feeling that if you like the 1980s “Ghostbusters” fare, you might feel more comfortable watching this movie at times compared to “Afterlife.” It’s back in New York City, you have more time with the original cast, and it has a much larger scale and feel. If you like those things, you should, on paper, have an okay time with this movie. But the reality is, much like what I said last week about “Kung Fu Panda 4,” if I were to introduce this franchise to someone, I would just start with the original. This follow-up is entertaining, but it does not change the game. It is not going to be remembered as one of the greats. Maybe I will catch it again on cable one day. “Ghostbusters” seems to have a large presence there anyway. But we shall see. It could be better. But for my money, I had fun with it.

In the end, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an enjoyable time, but compared to a couple other installments in this franchise, it is not as good. When it comes to pure spectacle, this movie does not fail. There is an action scene in the first act that had me hooked and excited for whatever was going to come next. Was I intrigued by everything that came after? You can say that. But I am not going to pretend I will run down the street screaming my highest recommendations for this film. That said, if you decide to watch it, you might enjoy it. You never know. I am going to give “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” a 6/10.

“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming up in the pipeline including “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” “Monkey Man,” “Abigail,” and “Civil War.” 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 “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Ghostbusters” movie? And despite everything I said earlier, I welcome any and all opinions about the 2016 reboot. If you like it, more power to you. But for me, the original is the best one. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor Things (2023): Emma Stone Delivers a Career-Best Performance in This Wildly Entertaining Mish Mash of Genres

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Poor Things” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite, The Lobster) and stars Emma Stone (The Favourite, The Amazing Spider-Man), Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight, The Avengers), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Ramy Youssef (Ramy, Mr. Robot), Christopher Abbott (Sanctuary, Girls), and Jerrod Carmichael (The Carmichael Show, Lucas Bros Moving Co.). This film is based on a book by Alasdair Gray and it is about Bella Baxter, a woman whose body just so happens to be revived as a result of a scientific experiment conducted by the eccentric Dr. Godwin Baxter.

I cannot explain this film’s concept justice. It is not that I do not know what it is about. But even before going to see it, I knew certain things about it that would have made for awkward conversation or have ruined the somewhat vague nature of the film’s marketing. On the surface, the film seems to give enough away. Basically, a woman who happens to be brought to life through science experiences her definition of what it means to live. I think that is a great way to describe this movie without being too detailed, or in some cases, overly graphic. The concept is interesting to say the least. But as far as I am concerned, it was being helmed by someone who I did not completely trust.

One of my least favorite films of 2018 was “The Favourite.” Of that year’s slate of Academy Award Best Picture nominees, that movie was by far the one I considered to be the worst. That film was directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. Other than the fact that I found the film to be a uniquely boring waste of time, it gave me a bad impression of the director to the point where I neglected visiting some of his earlier films. I have heard decent things about “The Lobster” and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer.” But I refused to watch those because I was so turned off by “The Favourite.” As I have said previously on Scene Before, first impressions matter. But I watched the trailer for “Poor Things” and found myself hypnotized, but also with a sense of hesitancy in the back of my mind. But I thought “Poor Things” was worth checking out because much like “The Favourite” five years ago, “Poor Things” has been receiving tons of positive word of mouth. Plus, if Emma Stone continues to trust Lanthimos, maybe I should too.

So, how was the movie? I am very pleased to say that this is a banger of a film. It is not in my top 10 of the year, but it is excellent. I am immensely pleased and surprised by how this film turned out. It is wacky, it is weird, it is a feast for the eyes and ears. Yorgos Lanthimos undoubtedly has a unique style to his filmmaking. But in some ways, this kind of reminded me of a Wes Anderson film. Its color palette is particularly striking, the production design is a perfect blend between reality and fantasy, and the dialogue is almost like an enhancement on everyday life. I might not come across people talking the way these characters do sometimes, but I assure you it makes complete sense within the context of the movie and its universe.

One of the reasons why this film failed to reach the mark of being in my top 10 films of the year is because it starts kind of rough. It takes a bit for the movie to get going, despite inklings of intrigue. There are a couple of moments that I found to be an eyesore. In a movie full of eye candy, there are moments where I found something in the frame quite disgusting to the point where I could not help but wince or look away. It is a bit of a balancing act, really.

Part of the movie is in black and white, and then there is a portion of it that is in color. There were some mixed bags when it came to the black and white scenes. Once we get to the color scenes, that is when the movie unleashes its best material. It is creative, insane, and even with its strange tendencies, everything makes sense. I found every single thing in this film convincing. That said, there are times where the pacing is a tad uneven. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but it is noticeable.

The ensemble of the film is honestly a contender for the best of 2023. To me, it is up there with “Barbie,” “Oppenheimer,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” and “The Holdovers” in terms of being a fine mix between star power, acting ability, and instant charm from everyone involved. Mark Ruffalo has a number of shining scenes that could potentially warrant some extended talk this awards season. Willem Dafoe, per usual, gives everything his all here. During the latter half of the film, I was heavily entranced by Kathryn Hunter as Swiney. The entire cast in this movie is great, but the star of the show, literally and figuratively, is none other than Emma Stone.

Talk about a marvelous triumph of a performance! Emma Stone nails Bella Baxter throughout this entire film. I looked back at Emma Stone’s IMDb and was reminded of some of her career highlights. Of course as a comic book movie enthusiast, I know she played Gwen Stacy in “The Amazing Spider-Man” and its sequel. She did a good job in those films despite them not being up to snuff. She also did one of the better coming of age films of the 2010s, “Easy A,” where she was funny and charming. I liked her in the “Zombieland” movies. Of course she was great in “La La Land.” I even liked her in “The Favourite” despite my negative thoughts on the movie. Given time to marinate, I have to say Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” trumps all of her past work that I have seen. I honestly cannot think of a performance of hers I liked more. “La La Land” comes close, but Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” is comparatively transformative, it is otherworldly. It something that I could have never imagined seeing in my entire life, especially from someone like her. I am not saying Stone is not a talented actress. There is a reason why she has an Oscar on her mantle. But this is a performance that takes what I know about Emma Stone as a person, as an actress, as someone who has seen her in certain movies, and completely subverts my expectations. As I watch this movie, I of course know it is Emma Stone in front of the camera. Her face has become rather recognizable over the years. In fact, even though I have not seen the movie, Stone may come off as less recognizable in Disney’s “Cruella” based on what I have witnessed through images and marketing. But as I watch this movie, despite the low difficulty of realizing the talent in front of the camera happens to be Stone physically, it is a bit harder to conclude that it is her mentally.

Part of what makes her performance so riveting and exciting is how her character easily blends in to the world around her. The script is written in such a way that I would not call it fantasy, but it certainly is not a part of our reality either. The film, kind of like “Everything Everywhere All at Once” meshes so many genres and ideas together to the point where it practically forms a genre of its own. Bella Baxter is one of the most unique characters I have seen all year, and she comes from an equally one of a kind piece of art. And that is what this movie is. Art. I was transfixed by this in the same way some may be transfixed by the Mona Lisa. Again, this is not to say “Poor Things” is one of the year’s best movies, but it is certainly one of the boldest and brightest.

While Bella Baxter might not be my favorite character in a movie I have seen this year, I need some time to think on that front. Baxter is nevertheless in contention to be, idealistically, the most fascinating protagonist created for the screen this year. She has a sympathetic personality, but she also has the mind of a young child and a teenager all wrapped into one person. With those last two ideas, we see a bit of a transition between them, but they are still interlinked somehow as the movie goes. The film is an entertaining study on what happens if you put someone as eccentric as Bella Baxter into our society, or some variant of it. What would she do? How would she behave? This is basically a fish out of water story. And while the fish out of water idea has been done time and time again, I imagine stories like this one happen to factor into why the idea continues to be unleashed in several projects. It is a tried and true method of storytelling that may be familiar, but if you could your own spin on it, it may be worth seeking out. And speaking of things that are worth seeking out, if you have time on your hands and you have not seen “Poor Things” yet, make an effort to see it at some point. Not only is it a great movie, it is one of the most welcome, monumental surprises of 2023. I know a lot of people were looking forward to this film. I was not one of them. If anything, I almost rolled my eyes knowing it exists. But with one AMC A-List punch later, I can say this is one of the better movies of the year.

In the end, “Poor Things” is a great turnaround for Yorgos Lanthimos. This movie took me from resisting his past work to making me want to see more of it. Emma Stone is better than she has ever been. If she is not nominated for an Oscar this season my jaw will be on the floor. I do not know of any actress I could see beating her this year. This is a once in a lifetime performance as far as she is concerned. The film is very funny. There are a lot of stellar lines from various characters. Bella Baxter’s mannerisms and quirks are wonderfully distinguished and brilliantly written throughout the picture. The movie does a good job at splicing all sorts of ideas at the wall and having most of them stick. The pathos was off and on. I do not think I am going to remember “Poor Things” through much of an emotional connection, but again, the comedy worked quite a bit so that makes up for it. The sets are detailed and colorful. I could not take my eyes off of some pieces. And if it were not for some occasional roughness in the first act, this film would probably make my top 10 of the year. You never know though, I could change my mind. I just saw the film. That said, as far as I am concerned, I am glad I saw it. If Lanthimos and Stone reunite in the future, I cannot wait to see what these two do next. I am going to give “Poor Things” an 8/10.

“Poor Things” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, why not check out some of my other ones? Just recently I did reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” “Migration,” and “Wonka.” Check those out when you have a chance! Also, I will soon be reviewing the new romcom “Anyone But You.” That will be up later this week. Also coming soon, I will be announcing my top 10 best and worst movies of 2023. 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 “Poor Things?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Yorgos Lanthimos movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Blue Beetle (2023): DC’s Third Solid Outing in 2023 Comic Book Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Blue Beetle” is directed by Ángel Manuel Soto (Charm City Kings, Menudo: Forever Young) and stars Xolo Maridueña (Parenthood, Cobra Kai), Adriana Barraza (Babel, Drag Me to Hell), Damian Alcazar (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Narcos), Bruna Marquezine (En Familia, Breaking Through), Raoul Trujillo (Apocolypto, Sicario), Susan Sarandon (Thelma & Louise, The Rocky Horror Picture Show), and George Lopez (George Lopez, Rio). This film is about Jaime Reyes, a recent college grad who is given powers courtesy of an alien scarab. Now in possession of his newfound abilities, he must use his new tricks to save his family, and the world.

Comic book movie fatigue… They are the three words that a plethora of people watching entertainment appear to spew every now and again, until it suddenly goes away. As for myself, I can say it is something I have never experienced. I have loved comic book movies ever since I was a kid, and I continue to do so today. Even if a talented filmmaker like Martin Scorsese calls them theme parks, it has not stopped me from endorsing them. In fact, throughout the decade, we have gotten a couple bangers like “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” In fact, just this year, we saw “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” which is now in contention to be amongst my top 5, if not top 3, comic book movies of all time. It is a one of a kind, game-changing, and earth-shattering addition to the genre. It has a certain kind of specialty to it that I have not witnessed in years. Despite being spoiled with “Across the Spider-Verse” recently, which somehow surpassed my monumental expectations, I will say “Blue Beetle” on the other hand had me less interested going into it.

Now let me be clear, I have seen every DCEU movie thus far. Everything from “Man of Steel” to “Birds of Prey.” I even saw “Wonder Woman 1984” in theaters. I even saw the last two that I have come to realize a lot of people ended up skipping. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” and “The Flash.” And honestly, both movies are quite good. They’re nowhere near perfect, but they delivered plenty of joy, brought some cool action to the table, and I had a lot of fun watching both. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” definitely had its cliches, but I still had a blast watching it. “The Flash” had a well executed story, a great protagonist, and a couple clever sequences. Admittedly, I kind of understand why “The Flash” did not do well for the most part. If you skipped the movie because of Ezra Miller, I am not going to hold that against you. It is the same thing I said about “West Side Story” when it comes to Ansel Elgort at the time. That said, Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” is excellent and has my full endorsement. You absolutely should watch it if you have not done so already.

But I imagine part of why DCEU movies have not done so well recently can contribute to a number of factors in addition the recent Ezra Miller shenanigans. Less than stellar marketing. Interesting release date choices. Underusing core characters like Batman and Superman. Making some movies rated R, therefore excluding the younger audience. Although given how it gave us “The Suicide Squad,” I have no complaints.

From the beginning, audiences lost their trust in the brand early. I liked a lot of the DCEU, but it does not change the fact that most of these movies play second fiddle to the MCU, which has defined comic book cinema for years. Since the pandemic started, every single one of these movies underperformed at the box office to some degree (granted, some went straight to HBO Max). Even “Black Adam” ended up making less money than I would have expected. But can “Blue Beetle” change things or is it too little too late?

Well… Given how James Gunn and Peter Safran are going to hit the reset button pretty soon I think the latter may be the more definitive answer in this case. But in reality, if you want to know my thoughts on “Blue Beetle,” I walked out of the movie having a good time. Much like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” this definitely relies on known beats to further things along. But as I have said about certain films, familiar things can work if they are done well, and that is the case with “Blue Beetle.”

The story and the rivalry it forms feels very been there done that. Basically, someone is creating an advanced machine that can potentially be utilized for war, and now it has to be stopped before things get out of hand. The technology of interest from Kord Industries in this film felt very much like something from Stark Industries. But what makes this giant tech company work is the protagonist’s developed connection to it.

After all, Jaime is a recent college grad. As someone who graduated college in the past year and a half, I found myself in a somewhat similar rut to Jaime at this point of his life. Basically, now that college is over, he is trying to find a job, but he cannot get anything no matter how hard he tries. That was my life for an extended period until I found myself in a couple positions right now that I am happy with. One of my favorite lines in this film is something I have always wondered on my job search. Jaime at one point asks how he is going to get experience if no one is going to give him a job. It is honestly one of the most relatable sentences I have ever heard. How can one prove themselves if they are never given the chance to do so?

One of the reasons why I was somewhat worried. Not completely worried, but somewhat worried, about “Blue Beetle” is that prior to the release of the film, it was announced that the film would go straight to HBO Max, or Max as it is now called. That was also going to be the case for a “Batgirl” movie starring Leslie Grace, which eventually got scrapped. As much as I am not a fan of the way certain things have been handled at Warner Bros. recently under David Zaslav, I will defend the scrapping of “Batgirl” because I worry its release would have done more harm than good for DC, which is already somewhat weak in the public eye to a certain degree. On the other hand, “Blue Beetle” got promoted to a theatrical release. The way all movies should be shown in my opinion… But this had me weary about the overall look of the film. Would it look too artificial? Too fake? Would the CGI look like something from many years ago?

Thankfully, that is not the case. In fact, I think of all the DC movies that have come out this year, “Blue Beetle” may be the best looking of all of them. I can drop a compliment for all the DCEU titles and their looks this year. I even thought “The Flash” looked okay at times, but I think there are a few moments of painfully obvious CGI or green screen. But this film is colorful, bright, and has a lively feel to it at all times. It does not look like a straight to streaming title, which may be a small part of why it got promoted in the first place. Like many entries of the comic book movie genre, there are some occasionally obvious effects, but even those are not dealbreakers. They never took me out of the movie. But the ultimate question is… Does “Blue Beetle” look like it was made for television? That would be a no. I have seen better looking movies of this caliber, but I have also seen worse. That said, I am not going to pretend this is on the level of “Avengers: Endgame.”

Again, when it comes to the comic book movie genre, I think it is obvious that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is king when it comes to that market. But I would say even their better movies like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Doctor Strange” fall by the wayside when it comes to the villain. One of the more prominent positives I have with “Blue Beetle” is the fact that the villain is actually kind of intimidating. Susan Sarandon does a pretty good job with the material given to her as Victoria Kord. Granted, if I had one complaint about her it is that she does emit some nearly one-dimensional mustache-twirly vibes every once in a while. Yet with that in mind, she still plays the part perfectly. But first impressions often matter in movie, and I knew from the very beginning, through decent on-screen execution, that I was not supposed to like this character.

Ultimately, it is the antagonist’s intimidation in this film that only makes the protagonist’s journey all the more exciting. I enjoyed watching Xolo Maridueña not only as the Blue Beetle in action, but as his other self, Jaime Reyes. A foundation of a lot of great comic book superheroes are the people behind the mask, and that is why despite the vast number of Spider-Man stories we have seen over the years, I will not deny the instant charm of Peter Parker, no matter who is playing him. Well… Okay, I don’t think Andrew Garfield truly shined as his Peter persona until “No Way Home.” But what makes Reyes work is that classic superhero/personal life balance that suddenly enters his life. While he is busy following his task of saving the world, he also has his family, he has a new love interest, he has to find a career. But balancing all of that becomes a bit harder with his newfound responsibilities. The marketing of “Blue Beetle” very much forwards the notion that the protagonist does not want to be in the situation he finds himself in. While in some cases it may not be exciting to have a protagonist who wants to avert from adventure, “Blue Beetle” makes it work to the best of its ability. Going back to Peter Parker, he makes the choice to be who he is because his mentor dies. He chose the superhero life. With Jaime Reyes, the superhero life chose him before he could turn back. Sure, Reyes took his responsibility into his own hands, and despite some initial aversion, he may have found glimmers of fun in his journey, but his resistance to his powers become a driving force throughout the much of the film. This whole idea is kind of relatable. If I suddenly became a superhero, awesome. I would love to fly around in the air and wave hi to people on a plane. But if that power came with some extra outside factors, I would like to know about them before going any further.

As for other standouts in the film, I would have to say I really enjoyed Reyes’s family. All of them are well portrayed by their respective actors, well-written, and by the end of the film, they kind of gave me the same joy that I got from say the Parrs in “The Incredibles.” This may also feel kind of gimmicky, but I always enjoy seeing an elderly woman, in this movie’s case, the character of Nana, wielding a machine gun and going to town with it, which does happen by the film’s end. The film has some genuinely fun, joyous moments, and I left the cinema with a smile on my face. While it may not be the next “Anchorman,” “Blue Beetle” has some funny moments in it as well.

As a comic book movie, “Blue Beetle,” like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” kind of scratches the surface and relies on some familiar beats. But I will not lie and say that they made for a well-structured, well-paced, and entertaining story. I even enjoyed the climax of the film, which does feel a bit familiar, but it ends in such a way where I admired the thinking of the characters in the situation. Speaking of the characters, all of them emit charm and come off as people I would want to hang out with.

In the end, “Blue Beetle” is a really good time. This movie honestly deserves to do better than it is doing right now. As of this writing, the film’s box office total has surpassed its budget. That said, it probably would need to make anywhere around two to three times that to break even. I am not going to pretend I am loving everything Warner Brothers is up to right now, but I am always happy to see when a film I like succeeds. But if you want a great movie to watch about a compelling family with a fascinating hero in the center of it all, I recommend “Blue Beetle.” I think of the DC movies that have come out this year, this is my favorite one they have done. It is a far cry from my favorite DCEU entry, “The Suicide Squad,” but if you are looking for something to watch in the theater right now, this is a solid option. It might even be good to watch with family. There is one intense scene that may be hard to watch, but other than that, this is a fine family movie night option. I am going to give “Blue Beetle” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Speaking of intense movie moments that may be hard to watch with your family, my next review is going to be for the brand new R-rated comedy “Strays.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Gran Turismo,” “Meg 2: The Trench,” and “Bottoms!” 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 “Blue Beetle?” What did you think about it? Or would you want superpowers? Why or why not? And if you do want them, which would you like to have if you could only choose one? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023): Audiences, Roll Out!

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is directed by Steven Caple Jr. (The Land, Creed II), and stars Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, A Star is Born) and Dominque Fishback (Judas and the Black Messiah, Project Power) in the latest adaptation of the Hasbro toy that has become a phenomenon. This time around, the story is set in the 1990s and features the Cybertronian Autobots and Maximals as the two transformative groups must unite to save the planet from Unicron.

“Transformers” was my childhood. Specifically the first Michael Bay movie. Keep in mind, I was born in 1999. I watched that film at least twice every month in 2008 until the earlier half of 2009. I still own it on DVD to this day. As far as CGI goes, the film continues to hold up and rival some of what has come out years later. I even think at times it looks better than its franchise successors. “Age of Extinction,” which kind of has a so bad it is good vibe to it, especially comes to mind. Michael Bay is not my favorite director. In fact, I thought his last film, “Ambulance,” is an atrocity against civilization. Therefore, I was glad to know that, like “Bumblebee,” Bay was not at the helm for this film.

For those of you who followed me long enough, you would know that I never got around to reviewing “Bumblebee.” But I ended up watching it for the first time this month and I thought it easily was the best “Transformers” movie we have gotten since 2007. I think it finally had a main human protagonist that actually exuded charisma and did more than just freak out or spew a one liner every time they saw a robot. I liked Hailee Steinfeld as the lead and thought the movie was a nice blend of “E.T.” mixed with hints of “The Iron Giant.” If that movie did not exist, this franchise may have remained on life support. Michael Bay ended up making too many movies and the further this franchise proceeded, the further the insanity proceeded. “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not a straight up sequel to “Bumblebee” but appears to be set in the same timeline of sorts. Regardless of its placement in the grand scheme of things, I had a good time with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts.” It is a slight step down from “Bumblebee,” but it is still a trek up from the past couple Michael Bay outings.

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not without its flaws. The film is about as predictable as movies like this can get at times, but as the old saying goes, it is not about the destination. It is the journey. Thankfully, the journey is quite good. But on the topic of predictability, one thing I was not able to predict was the end of the film. There is a certain event at the last minute that caught me off guard. Those of you who have seen the movie, know exactly what I am talking about. For those of you who are planning to see the movie at some point, fasten your seatbelts.

Speaking of predictability, one cliché this movie continues is that despite the movie being called “Transformers,” it might as well be called “Humans,” because it centers around a human protagonist. I kind of get why that is the case because the audience needs someone to relate to. It is a bit harder to relate to robots from Cybertron. But either way, it is a noticeable trend that has not stopped. That said, the humans in this movie are comparatively likable to the ones in Michael Bay’s later films. I do not think Anthony Ramos’s character of Noah Diaz has as much charisma as Sam Witwicky does, nor is he as likable of a protagonist as him, but Ramos is able to carry the film.

Also in the film is Dean Scott Vazquez as Kris Diaz. His character is so likable that I honestly wanted more of him. Every line out of him is perfect. The main two human leads in this film are Anthony Ramos and Dominque Fishback, who are both good actors. I have nothing against them as performers and I have enjoyed some of their previous work. This movie can keep Anthony Ramos in the lead role for all I care. But having seen some of Dean Scott Vazquez’s smile-inducing charm brought to the table, I kind of wish he was in Dominque Fishback’s spot. Granted, the movie they already crafted makes a lick of sense with Fishback in a greater spotlight, but it would have probably been more fun had Vazquez been there for more of the ride. It would have been a delightful brotherly duo. I got a sense of their chemistry from the beginning and the two actors honestly pair together like chocolate chips and ice cream. I wish I got to see more of that, but what I did see was sweet.

That said, there are plenty of Transformers in this film, including the Maximals in addition to the already commonly showcased Autobots. If you are looking for big screen summer action, look no further. This movie has it. When it comes to spectacle in this franchise, this might be the best that has been brought to the big screen since “Dark of the Moon.”

Speaking of “Transformers,” Noah does get a chance to bond with one in particular, specifically Mirage, played by Pete Davidson. Their chemistry is okay and I like what these two have to go through together, but I have slightly more mixed thoughts on the voice. At times, it blends perfectly with the character, but at other times, all I see is Pete Davidson. I have nothing against Pete Davidson as an actor, as a comedian. I enjoy some of his work on “Saturday Night Live,” “Big Time Adolescence,” “The King of Staten Island,” and as much as I hated “Fast X,” I think his cameo in the movie is one of the miniscule highlights. But my problem with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” when it comes to not just Pete Davidson as Mirage, but also Michelle Yeoh as Airazor, is that the actors’ voices are recognizable enough to the point where they become a bit distracting. Granted, it is not absurdly bad. Davidson and Yeoh do an okay job with their material, and when it comes to this problem, I do not think it is as blatant and annoying as say “DC League of Super Pets” when it comes to the leads of Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart. But having heard their voices in prior material, it makes me think they are just playing another version of themselves. Instead, I want a character. Live-action roles are a little different where you have the person in the room. I kind of want an escape from that person when they just use their voice sometimes.

Yeoh’s voice is one of a kind, which is both a compliment and a curse. Yeoh is not in the movie a lot, but when she is there, all I see is her sometimes. Thankfully, even though Pete Davidson is in the movie a lot so I pick out his voice more, the admirability of his character makes up for it. He is genuinely charming.

With this in mind, I know this is probably a personal issue that comes from watching some of the prior material from these actors. I imagine a lot of people discovering this film for the first time in the future may find this to be less problematic as other big names rise. Right now as I write this review in 2023, this stands as a flaw based on the events of these times which I have experienced.

Although speaking of voices, Peter Cullen returns as Optimus Prime. And as fantastic as he is here as usual, I picked up some noticeable ruggedness in the character’s voice. Peter Cullen is 81 years old, so obviously his voice is not going to be the exact same as it was years ago. But I wonder if Cullen is getting to the point where he may almost be done with the role. If there is any indication, Chris Hemsworth is going to voice Optimus Prime in an upcoming animation titled “Transformers One.”

The best way to describe “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” would be to compare it to a trip to Burger King. I enjoyed what was on my plate, but it is sometimes inconsistent and I know what I am getting is not of the highest quality. I am not saying “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” was not made with the intention to barely pass, but this is a case where negatives stand out, but the positives stand out just a bit more for me to have a good time. The film looks and sounds great. My theater shook on many occasions and the camerawork is honestly smoother compared to some of the other “Transformers” movies that have come out recently. The special effects are top-notch. The action is spectacular. The characters are fine, but could be better. I think Anthony Ramos as Noah Diaz is a better lead than Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager. The story has its cliches and predictability. But as far as summer blockbusters go, this is a solid entry in this movie season. I think between “Bumblebee” and this latest effort, the franchise is on a decent path. Maybe we will get more like these two along the way. And much like “Burger King,” I may end up coming back to “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” despite its blunders.

In the end, “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not quite a masterpiece, but far from a disaster. When it comes to big action movies, this is a good choice. I am not going to pretend that I will run down the streets begging for everyone to check it out, but I am glad I saw it. If you are on the fence of seeing this movie, give it a shot. You may not be disappointed. I would put this film in the same boat as “Godzilla vs. Kong.” It is noticeably entertaining as it is flawed. I am going to give “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” a very high 6/10.

“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new DC movie, “The Flash!” Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “No Hard Feelings,” “Elemental,” “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” and “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” 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 “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Transformers” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

M3GAN (2022): Come For the Dancing Robot, Stay for the Commentary

Posted on by Jack Drees

“M3GAN” is directed by Gerard Johnstone (The New Legends of Monkey, Terry Teo) and stars Allison Williams (Get Out, Girls), Jenna Davis (Maggie, Raven’s Home), and Violet McGraw (The Haunting of Hill House, Jett). This film centers around a young girl named Cady who loses her parents, is put under the custody of her aunt, but despite finding herself under said guardianship, she does not feel the same as she once did. Not to mention, said aunt is having trouble filling the shoes of her new, unexpected role. That is where M3GAN, an advanced toy doll prototype designed to practically be a child’s best friend, comes in.

When I think about the movie “M3GAN,” it would not be surprising for me to easily jump to conclusions and suggest that this is a gender-swapped version of “Child’s Play.” In some ways, it is. Although as I have said many times on Scene Before, horror is not my strongest genre, therefore I am not entirely familiar with “Child’s Play” and am purely going off of things I have heard. This time, the Chucky doll is a girl, and the child this movie revolves around is a girl as well. The trailer emitted these vibes from the moment I first witnessed it. Sure, there is that one dance routine that M3GAN does that makes her stand out, but I was not sure how a horror movie released in January could not only make its presence known, but worth appreciating. Sure, statistically, horror has been on a roll in recent months, at least for me. But now that we are in January, we are in the time where without exaggeration, movies go to die. If you are not going back to see “Avatar: The Way of Water” or “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” for the first, second, or third time, you are probably going to be watching something that is either deemed less favorable, or something that is still pulling in people for an Oscar nod that came out during the fall.

Thankfully for “M3GAN,” this movie is a delightful surprise. Yes, the trailers make it look like January trash, but it does have some genuine charm throughout that makes it worth the watch. I was shocked and delighted to find out how layered this movie ended up being. From scene one, I ended up caring about the young Cady. I felt terrible for both Cady and her aunt, Gemma, as the two tried to get better acquainted. I have not lost my parents at a young age. I know people who have, and it must be a pain I could never fathom. Nevertheless, this movie manages to capture such a pain with excellence. As for Gemma, a lot of pressure was put on her in a split second. She does not have much experience with children, despite working at a toy company. I not only sympathized with the main character, but the supporting character who is supposed to look after said main character.

As mentioned before, regarding “M3GAN,” an obvious similarity would be “Child’s Play.” But I would also say that another film prominently featuring a technologically advanced toy, “Ron’s Gone Wrong,” would also make for a good comparison. These films have their vast differences. For example, I would not outright recommend “M3GAN” for children, but I think “M3GAN” does a good job at doing something “Ron’s Gone Wrong” tried to do, but in the case of “M3GAN,” the results were more pleasing. To be specific, this film dives into commentary about technology, the toy industry, and how these things can affect one’s social behavior. Children often form attachments to various possessions, and sometimes that can define their life around a certain age. I played a lot of video games when I was younger, so I had an attachment to my various consoles. I would go on vacations and literally take my Xbox 360 with me. This movie reminded me that children will inevitably have obsessions. Heck, every other time I am in a store like GameStop or Target, I will see a child and parent together, and every other time I would hear the child calling out for a toy or something of a similar nature and beg their parent to buy it for them. M3GAN comes off as a toy that could make such a thing happen if it were on display.

In addition to attachment, this movie does a great job at showing how technology tends to replace guardians in many cases. Technology is often used as an escape no matter what age somebody is. However, there comes a point where this movie is a reminder to monitor how often your child is in front of a screen. In M3GAN’s case, it is perhaps a bit more daunting than say my recent Xbox 360 example. Because an Xbox 360 is replaceable. Whether we are talking about more advanced consoles like the Xbox One, or whichever other Xbox 360 already in existence has yet to crap out because of the red ring of death. This movie advertises M3GAN as the one toy a child could ever want for the rest of their life. As a result, it is the one friend they could want too. M3GAN is equipped to do what other people Cady’s age can do and possibly more. Whereas the option is always there to play video games with my friends, M3GAN has the ability to take the actual social component out of anything.

To call “M3GAN” the scariest movie of all time would be a hyperbole beyond hyperboles. I should note, the movie is PG-13, but nevertheless, rather effective. However, I would say the scariest thing about “M3GAN” is something that happens in the movie, and what it made me think about upon leaving it. The most haunting thing about movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey” from 1968, “The Terminator” from 1984, or even more recent films like “Wall-E” from 2008 is that those stories are representative of realities where we could lead ourselves if we are not careful. “M3GAN” is not the scariest horror movie within the past year. The actual scares in the movie are kind of tame compared to say “Smile,” where I was shivering on a regular basis.

That said, the scariest thing about “M3GAN” is that the movie is perhaps representative of not our future, but where we are today. This movie starts off with an advertisement about a toy that is wholly reminiscent of the typical formula of almost any ad found during the daytime on Nickelodeon. If anything, M3GAN is what happens when you put Siri or Alexa inside of an American Girl doll. Heck, the doll even has singing capabilities. What if there is a point where this becomes a franchise and these dolls sell out concerts at Madison Square Garden? M3GAN is literally a smartphone with legs. It presents information in full detail when the moment seems most convenient. It is customized to cater to its primary user. And Cady is endlessly attached to it. Who is not attached to their phone these days?

To give an example of how “M3GAN” is not necessarily representative of our future, but today, let me give you a picture of my screening. This was nowhere near a full house. But the film brought in plenty of people into its small auditorium of ages varying from somewhere in the teens, possibly tweens, to that of a fully grown adult. Almost everyone had their phone out. Some had it out for a second. Some longer. There were moments where people were using their phone while losing focus on the movie. There were also moments where I saw a sea of four, five phones on at a time. In fact, since I do not carry a watch, I checked my phone, which I left in my pocket while doing so, to see the time after the trailers ended because AMC loves advertising everything under the sun. First off, if you are going to go the movies, the only screen that matters is the one the largest one in the room. Be respectful. Second, there is a scene in “M3GAN” that does not specifically target the people doing what they were doing in this theater, but the more I think about my experience, the more I connect it to Cady’s connection to M3GAN in that moment. She loves M3GAN so much that she is unwilling to give it up for even a couple hours for any other activity presented in front of her.

M3GAN is probably not going to end up in my favorite movies of the year list once we arrive at the end, but it probably is going to be one I will think about regularly because of how many connections I can make between the story and my life experiences. I went into M3GAN to see some silly robot take over the lives of a household. I definitely acquired more than that, and for such a reason, this movie was worth the watch.

In the end, “M3GAN” is honestly better than I expected going in. It is a fine mix of drama, comedy, horror, and social commentary. It does a bunch of things at once, and manages to do them well. In addition, it reaffirmed not only why I should be worrisome in regards to the future and how technology could affect it, but also how technology can affect people right now. I left this film worried, and honestly, that is what makes “M3GAN” as effective as it is. I am going to give “M3GAN” a 7/10.

“M3GAN” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my review for “M3GAN.” Check out some of my other reviews for recent horror titles like “Halloween Ends,” “Barbarian,” and “The Mean One.” Also, stay tuned because I will be dropping my thoughts on “Missing,” which I saw before “M3GAN,” but due to being under embargo, I decided to review “M3GAN” first. Stay tuned for my thoughts coming soon! If you want to see all of 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 “M3GAN?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a toy or piece of technology you found yourself attached to at some point in your life? Are you still attached today? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!