Sci-fi

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!

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982): An Emotionally Thrilling, High-Flying, Down to Earth Tale

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Last September, I made a promise to those who follow me on social media that I would do a Steven Spielberg Month! And with that promise comes a review of one of his most famous works, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” I mean, how can I not review this movie? Look at my last minute Photoshopped poster! I am committing to this movie no matter what! That said, “E.T.” is one of the films most people think of when they hear the words Steven Spielberg. It might shock you to know that despite this film coming out before I was born and having such longevity, this is my second time in my entire life watching this film. Is the rewatch worth it? Let’s find out.

“E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” is directed by Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) and stars Dee Wallace, Henry Thomas, Peter Coyote, Robert MacNaughton, and Drew Barrymore. This film centers around a young boy who finds an alien life form. Despite the foreign nature of this being, the boy befriends and communicates with the alien all the while trying to send him back to his planet of origin.

When it comes to Steven Spielberg’s most influential works, there’s often a debate as to what that film might actually be. “Jaws” essentially invented the modern blockbuster. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” spawned an iconic franchise that other exploration and adventure stories often get compared to. “Jurassic Park” is not only often considered to be the best dinosaur movie, but paved the way for CGI heavy cinema as we know it. However, “E.T.” should also be in the conversation. Even though “E.T.” is a story that brings our world together with foreign territory, it is a film that works because of how tiny it feels. And that is despite the occasional scene where things happen away from home. That is despite an iconic moment where we see our heroes fly by the moon. That is despite the punch-packing score by John Williams. This movie is like being promised a small, delicious pizza, but getting a large at no extra charge.

Safe to say, I had a ridiculously fun time watching “E.T.,” and it is easy to see why people are still celebrating it forty years later.

Even if its video game adaptation is cringe.

I only saw “E.T.” once when I was younger, and while I remember various things about it, this viewing truly felt like an initial watch. Like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” I had the chance to watch “E.T.” at home on 4K Blu-ray. Speaking of similarities to “Close Encounters,” “E.T.” looks surprisingly practical, and that practicality adds a hint of charm to the film itself. If E.T. himself were CGIed, part of me would wonder how off-putting or pixelated that could come off. Thankfully, such an idea remains a mystery.

Speaking of practical, one of the most believable things in the movie is how they handled the connection between Eliott and E.T.. Whether you believe a kid like Eliott would actually take an alien into his home is one thing. As for how they handled the taking of an alien into Eliott’s home makes the journey worthwhile. Seeing their differences in communication provided for glimmers of entertainment. This also goes to show the magic of minimal dialogue, notably on E.T.’s part. E.T. has very few lines in the movie, but each one emits a particular positive emotion that stands out. This is perhaps the film’s biggest strength. The story is simple, but the way it is executed allowed for a great balance of happiness, sadness, and everything in between.

When I look back on my experience of watching “E.T.,” I anticipate to remember select moments where my eyes lit up, and others where my eyes almost watered. And this movie is not short on these. While “Blade Runner” may still be my favorite movie from 1982, I can confirm that “E.T.” is more effective when it comes to inducing character attachments and emotions for everything that is happening.

When it comes to Steven Spielberg’s science fiction slate, I think this is a better movie overall than “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” The biggest strength of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is not the main character of Roy Neary, as likable as he is. Instead, that honor belongs to the curiosity of Barry, a three-year-old boy. Spielberg is consistent from one film to another in suggesting that children are likely to take steps to determine what strange happenings are going on outside. This consistency is effective because naturally, children are curious. Although for “E.T.,” the child of focus here, specifically Eliott, is the protagonist. His mother, Mary (Dee Wallace) plays a prominent role in the film. However, when it comes to “Close Encounters” comparisons, Mary emits more of the characteristics of Ronnie, who is noticeably less open-minded towards the ongoing alien plot.

If I had to give any problems to “E.T.,” it would have nothing to do with the story. In fact, it is as perfect as can be. I would barely change a single thing about it. That dishonor, instead, belongs to the technical aspects of the film. The film has its highlights from various night shots that look beautiful, a nicely edited action sequence towards the end, and of course, one of the best, not to mention catchiest, scores John Williams has ever done.

“E.T.” came out in 1982. Therefore, after the film’s release, many improvements have been made to how green screen is done. Although you cannot have the improvements seen in movies like “Avengers: Endgame” without the mistakes made in “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” There are a couple flying sequences in this film. At times, they come off as beautiful. John Williams’s score accompanies both of these scenes and allow him to deliver the best music in the movie. However, the green screen, or blue screen in this case, looks obvious. It looks kind of fake. If anything, it makes the shark in “Jaws” look real. I was fully immersed in this flying sequence and nevertheless continue to reflect on it after the movie with positive thoughts. But seeing the landscape move around in the background the way it does is kind of distracting. That said, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a flying bike. Therefore I respect Spielberg and crew for trying to imagine how such a thing could look. The result, per my born in 1999 and viewing in 2022 eyes, is mostly positive.

If I had any other problems with the movie, it would be the first scene between Eliott and E.T. from either an editing or directorial perspective. When E.T. is revealed, we see Eliott react to the sight of the foreign creature. Obviously, he is terrified. I have no problem with the way this is written, but the way it was assembled was a bit jumpy. There are only so many cuts you can do of one person’s face screaming in fear. I think that was a bit overdone.

That said, these are small problems within a film of wonder. The cast is great, the characters are well-written, and the shots are some of the most gorgeous of 1980s cinema. As far as science fiction and alien-based films go, I think Spielberg stepped it up from “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” As much as I enjoyed “Close Encounters,” I think I would rather watch “E.T.” again in the near future.

Also, I cannot go on without acknowledging this iconic moon shot. There are few instances in cinema that are as eye-popping as this. There is a reason why this became part of the Amblin logo.

In the end, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” is some of the most fun I have had watching a movie recently. They say that moviemaking is a business, which comes with a double-edged sword. The studios always try to follow the money, and therefore quality is sometimes neglected. Not with “E.T.,” because the movie is the highest-grossing project of 1982 by a long shot. It is one thing to be successful, but to be successful and career-defining is another. This film was a win for Steven Spielberg back in the 1980s, and it is a still a winner today. This is a great film for all ages, and I would not mind putting it on again sometime. I am going to give “E.T the Extra-Terrestrial.” an 8/10.

“E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” is now available on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available to rent or buy digitally, and you can also stream it on Peacock.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see another review from this ongoing Steven Spielberg Month event, check out my thoughts on “Close Encounters of the Third Kind!”

My next review in the Steven Spielberg Month series is a 35 year jump in time! This is a film I have not seen yet, I am watching it for the first time for this review, “The Post.” I have heard decent things about this movie. In fact it was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Here is hoping it is good! Also, be sure to stay tuned for my reviews for “Amsterdam,” “Smile,” and “Halloween Ends.” 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 “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial?” What did you think about it? Or, this might be a dumb question, but it is about something stupid so it comes full circle. Have you ever had the chance to play “E.T.” on the Atari 2600? If so, tell me about your experience. I want to know everything. Scene Before is your click to the flicks.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977): My First Contact with Steven Spielberg’s Sci-fi Classic

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Last year on Scene Before, in honor of the fifth anniversary, I promised everyone that I would spend months focusing on several themed review periods. This has lead to series including “Mortal Kombat: Finish the Reviews,” where I reviewed the 1995 “Mortal Kombat” film and its sequel, “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.” I also did “Revenge of the Nerds Month,” where I reviewed all the movies in its respective franchise. Starting with “Revenge of the Nerds,” to “Nerds in Paradise,” followed by “The Next Generation,” and finally, “Nerds in Love.” I capped this charade off with “The Matrix Reviewed,” where I talked about “The Matrix,” “The Matrix Reloaded,” and “The Matrix Revolutions.” That was last year.

This year however, I have yet to review any older movies, or do any particular theme. Well, that changes. On November 11th, Steven Spielberg will release his latest film, the highly anticipated loosely based on true events tale, “The Fabelmans.” In honor of his latest film and his significant career, I figured it would be time to do a “Steven Spielberg Month.” For this review, we will be starting with “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” It was my first time watching the film, and here are my initial thoughts.

“Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is directed by Steven Spielberg and stars Richard Dreyfuss, Teri Garr, Melinda Dillon, and François Truffaut in a film about Roy Neary, an electric lineman who encounters a UFO. This incident enhances his curiosity as to the events this may lead to, which causes him to go cross-country to find out more.

For those who beg to ask, I am basing my review on the theatrical version of the film, which is the only cut I have seen. This review is based on my first contact, my initial close encounter, with “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” I am sort of surprised it took me 22 years to watch this film, as I am a bit of a science fiction nut. In fact, just this year, the moviegoing masses received the latest film from Jordan Peele, “Nope,” which speaking of Spielberg, I compared to “Jaws” based on my experience with both films. “Nope” is not as good as “Jaws,” but content-wise, the two feel similar. If I watched “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” before seeing “Nope,” which I did not, I probably would have used that film as a device to compare to as well. After all, both films prominently feature aliens and if you read my review for “Nope,” I referenced that film “as the closest I think a director has come in some time to providing a Spielberg-like experience without the use of the actual Steven Spielberg.”

When it comes to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” I was kind of expecting some variation of “Jaws” but with aliens, as if an alien were to be a primal focus of the screen time. After all, again, Steven Spielberg directed both films. What I got out of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” felt deeper, it felt more character-driven. This is not a diss on “Jaws” because that is a great film and the characters have likable personalities. But at the end of the day, when it comes to “Jaws,” I am mostly there to watch the shark do shark things while the humans deal with it. Obviously they have admirable backstories, but it goes to show how much I rooted for and related to the main character of Roy Neary. I am not an electric lineman, nor I do live in the midwest. That said, I found the character’s motivations aligning with mine and I felt for him throughout various occasions of the film, even if he is designed to look crazy.

After all, if I tweeted to the entire world, picture included or not, that I saw a UFO, it would generate a ton of reactions, at least one of which would involve someone calling me insane. I have watched stories where people faced alien life, the supernatural, or other similar concepts where the movie’s supporting cast to some degree might grow suspicious of the main character and think they are cuckoo. Only thing is, I know that as a third party observer, they are not. If anything this leads to this film’s biggest strength. Even though I am rooting for Roy Neary, there are one or two moments in this movie where he can come off as crazy. But much like a mad scientist potentially discovering the latest integration that could potentially be used for time travel, this craziness could also be marked as obsessiveness, which is why I find Roy Neary likable. He may come off as weird, but he is passionate about accomplishing his goal. I want the latter to be true for just about any protagonist.

For good reason, this movie is about Roy Neary, but one of my favorite aspects of how this story is told is how they use a three year old boy as a curiosity mine. This is a perfect utilization. Children, perhaps stereotypically, are more curious than adults. Therefore it makes sense to have as much of a focus on three year old Barry as much as a grown adult like Roy. While “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is more of a science fiction tale than a horror flick, Barry’s perspective brought hints of the latter genre to the table. There is a particular moment midway through the film that had me caught me slightly off guard not because of what I saw, but because of what I could not see. Film is a visual medium. Therefore, it is often expected for sight to be the most important and heightened sense within each edition of said medium. In today’s cinematic landscape where VFX-heavy films dominate, it is nice to see a film with an occasional sense of minimalism.

At the same time though, this should not take away from “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” as a visual spectacle. Partially because the film looks beautiful, even if there is another 1977 science fiction film that somehow surpasses it, specifically “Star Wars.” I watched this film on 4K Blu-ray, so therefore I also got to see the HDR transfer. Even though there are several scenes that take place at night, this film is not short on vibrant, visible color. The mothership in particular is one of the more awe-inspiring crafts in the entire science fiction genre. The variety of lit colors on the ship emit a poppy vibe even though it looks like the last thing you will ever see.

I should not be surprised that film looks as good as it does. The standard for shooting movies at this time was 35mm film, which has occasionally been used today for productions like “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” and “The Northman.” Although I was delighted to know that this movie’s visual effects sequences were shot using 70mm film. The cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond is clear and wide enough to pick up all the fine details. “Close Encounters” has a specialty where it is one the more rugged-looking sci-fi movies, but that makes it all the more beautiful. The movie relies on practical effects instead of computers, which is a smart choice. Forty-five years later, the movie’s appearance has aged like a fine wine.

I do not know when I plan on watching “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” again. It is not a bad film by any means, but I did not find it as memorable as other films in the sci-fi genre. At the same time though, this film feels like an achievement for the genre in the same way that “Star Wars” was in the same year. Technically speaking, it is breathtaking. Characteristically speaking, I admired just about everyone on screen. I would say if you have never seen the film, give it a watch sometime.

In the end, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is a solid movie that feels like a semi-realistic interpretation of what could happen if mankind ever encountered alien life. Some of us would be curious. Some of us would run. Some of us would want to get authorities involved. It all sounds legit. Kind of like the shark in “Jaws,” I came to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” to see how it uses aliens in its story. Although I stayed to see human characters like Roy deal with an unfamiliar situation. The stay was certainly worth it. I am going to give “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” a 7/10.

“Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is now available in formats including VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. You can also rent or buy the film through Video On Demand or on various streaming services.

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, why not check out some of my other ones? Like my review for the most expensive Czech film of all time, “Medieval!” Also, be sure to check out my review for the brand new comedy, “Clerks III!”

My next review for the ongoing Steven Spielberg Month, which shall be posted on Friday, October 14th, is going to be for “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” I have not watched this film in many years, so I feel like I am going in with a fresh perspective. I hope I am not disappointed. Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “The Post” and the 2021 remake of “West Side Story!” 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 “Close Encounters of the Third Kind?” What did you think about it? Or, since it is related, did you see “Nope?” Tell me your thoughts! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Nope (2022): YEP.

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Nope” is directed by Jordan Peele (Get Out, Us) and stars Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out, Judas and the Black Messiah), Keke Palmer (Lightyear, Ice Age: Continental Drift), Steven Yeun (Minari, The Walking Dead), Michael Wincott (The Crow, Alien: Resurrection), Brandon Perea (The OA, Doom Patrol), Wrenn Schmidt (Outcast, For All Mankind), Barbie Ferreira (Euphoria, Unpregnant), and Keith David (The Thing, Pitch Black). This film is about a brother and sister who live on a ranch and witness an unusual, shocking event that changes everything.

So far, when it comes to Jordan Peele’s filmography, he has proven himself as legit horror storyteller. “Get Out” is unsettling and perfectly paced from start to finish. “Us” has charismatic characters and is a fine balance between subtle and trippy. “Nope” contains some of the horror elements that audiences may have grown accustomed to over the past couple films Peele directed. There are jumpscares, strange happenings, and much like “Us,” there is an intentionally placed scene in the beginning that in most cases would almost feel kind of out of place.

However, the biggest difference between “Nope” and Peele’s previous work is the scope. It would be easy for me to say that “Nope” is the biggest film Peele’s made so far, but I can back that up by saying “Nope” cost $68 million to make. That is more than “Us,” which cost $20 million, and “Get Out,” which cost $4.5 million. But there are reasons beyond the numbers as to why it is so big. The film is entirely shot on 65mm film, including select sequences which were shot in IMAX. Yes, Peele went full Nolan on this movie. Although unlike Christopher Nolan with some of his recent fare like “Tenet,” I could actually hear what the actors were trying to say. You see what happens when booming music is used sparingly? Out of all the films Peele has done so far, this is the one that most closely resembles that summer blockbuster vibe.

This is probably the closest I think a director has come in some time to providing a Spielberg-like experience without the use of the actual Steven Spielberg. Now, Spielberg has done a lot of movies, but he is most well known for his blockbusters like “Jaws” and “Jurassic Park.” This leads me to my biggest praise for “Nope,” and that is that this movie does for UFOs what Steven Spielberg and crew did for the original “Jaws” and “Jurassic Park” movies. What do I mean? There is a UFO in the movie, but much like the shark in “Jaws,” the UFO is used sparingly. Much like that iconic shark some call Bruce, the UFO felt special. And kind of like in “Jurassic Park,” which took its time to establish the gargantuan nature of its dinosaurs, the UFO is not only menacing when it appears, but it made me as a viewer feel small. I am very likely going to buy “Nope” on physical media as it is that good of a film. I am quite curious to know how that effect is going to come off on my television screen. But I can say as someone who has seen “Nope” twice in the theater, each scene where the UFO played a crucial role made it feel like the literal elephant in the room.

Speaking of elephants in the room, let’s talk about my favorite performance in the film. Keke Palmer gives it her all in “Nope.” Emerald Haywood (right) is exactly the type of character this movie needed. Compared to “Get Out,” which at times dives into the divide between class and race, “Nope” feels more like an escape. And Palmer does her absolute best to give an escape. Her dynamic voice and personality are that of an auctioneer on Adderall. If the character of Emerald Haywood were not in the horse-training business, she has the perfect skill set to sell cars. Her energy and physicality grabbed my attention from scene one. Keke Palmer is set to host the upcoming NBC reboot of “Password.” After seeing what she could do in this film, they made a great choice for the upcoming host.

Now on the other hand, the main character of the film, OJ Haywood (left), has less physicality, not to mention personality. And things seem to be that way on purpose. Daniel Kaluuya does a solid job playing a stoic character who seems to be going through the motions. I think that if the film had OJ be a ball of energy like Emerald, that could create for a problem. In a film as big as this, there needs to be at least one dose of reality or silence within all the noise. If “Nope” were an Amtrak train, OJ would be the quiet car. But this also leads me to say that I like the other main characters in “Nope” more than OJ because their energy therefore made me feel more energetic myself throughout the runtime. Not only did Keke Palmer succeed in this mission with Emerald, but Steven Yeun deserves some credit too for his upbeat portrayal of Ricky “Jupe” Park.

Although I should not say that the reality in this movie is a waste, because one of the characters in this film reminded me of my time when I worked at Staples in the tech department. That character is Angel Torres, who works at Fry’s Electronics, a now defunct electronics store chain. The first scene between him and the brother-sister duo felt reminiscent of my tactics when checking people out, not to mention some of the customer’s reactions when I would pop a certain question. While Angel may seem like an everyday electronics store employee, or at least he was, until Fry’s closed with the rest of their locations, he ended up being a delightfully charming part of the film.

If I had any negatives with the film, the biggest standout would be that given how Jordan Peele has leaned into this blockbuster route, this makes the film feel less substantial compared to his others. Do not get me wrong, it is a great movie. But what I mean is that compared to “Get Out,” I did not think as much about deeper meanings. “Nope” tries to play around with something of this nature involving a sitcom and a monkey, but I honestly do not think it did much other than give one character some backstory. You know that saying about how when you get to certain age in your life, presumably somewhere in your young adulthood, and you realize that maybe you are not as smart as you once thought you might be? If “Nope” were a real person, it would not have reached that stage just yet. The movie chooses to open a certain way and continue a certain way with this ideology that I will not spoil, but did not particularly sit with me the way I think Peele would have wanted it to. It felt like a move that was trying to be pretentious, but only ended up feeling meaningless. I wish I could give more detail.

One final positive before we move on. Over the years, many movies have used their title through the script in such a way that stands out. In “Back to the Future,” there is a scene where Doc exclaims he will send Marty back to the future. In “Better Off Dead,” there is a literally a song with the lyrics “better off dead” that plays a prominent role. I will also go back to “Jurassic Park” and the massive scale it provides. One scene where that tactic comes into play has the character of John Hammond magnificently say “Welcome to Jurassic Park.” I think “Nope” officially takes the crown for best use of a movie title in its own movie. I think that as long as I shall live, there will NEVER be a better use of this concept. The moment one particular character says “Nope,” the entire auditorium cackled like hyenas, and for good reason.

In the end, “Nope” gets a yep from me. This is not Jordan Peele’s best film. In fact, in some ways, it might be his worst, but it is also the most fun of the ones he has made. It is definitely one I would watch on a Friday night if I want to look at something massive. The cinematography, which is done by the great Hoyte van Hoytema, is some of the best of the year. The night shots look beautiful, the climax looks incredible, and there is one particular money shot I would love to have as a desktop photo if I were more willing to customize my setup. “Nope” is a good time and it is fun to look at. But unlike “Get Out,” this is perhaps less likely to be nominated for Best Picture. Although if the Academy Awards took place right now, Keke Palmer should get an acting nomination per my opinion. I am going to give “Nope” a 7/10.

“Nope” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Nope,” be on the lookout for more reviews! Pretty soon I will share my thoughts on “DC League of Super-Pets” and “Vengeance.” 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 “Nope?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite summer blockbuster of all time? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Jurassic World: Dominion (2022): What in the Jurassic World Did I Just Watch?

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Jurassic World: Dominion” is directed by Colin Trevorrow, who also directed the 2015 “Jurassic World” film, which I thought was slightly flawed despite its neat visuals, booming score, and somewhat clever concept. This film stars Chris Pratt (The LEGO Movie, Guardians of the Galaxy), Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, The Help), Laura Dern (Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Marriage Story), Jeff Goldblum (Thor: Ragnarok, The World According to Jeff Goldblum), Sam Neill (Peaky Blinders, Crusoe), DeWanda Wise (She’s Gotta Have It, Fatherhood), Mamoudou Athie (The Circle, The Front Runner), BD Wong (Kingdom Hearts II, Mr. Robot), Omar Sy (Transformers: The Last Knight, The Intouchables), and Campbell Scott (The Amazing Spider-Man, House of Cards). This film is set in a time where dinosaurs are roaming the earth, they’re unleashed, there is no stopping them.

Actually, no… That was the promise that was given in that one short film that was shown in IMAX and eventually put online… But no! We have to settle for a comparatively boring story where the same dull human characters we have seen waltz through two movies, fight against a genetics research giant whose main goal is to conduct research on dinosaurs.

You hear that? That stomping on the ground? That is not a dinosaur. That is me, walking out of the theater in ire.

If you want a hint on what I thought of “Jurassic World: Dominion,” here it goes… “Jurassic World: Dominion” can be summed up in one word. And if I were writing this review for an outlet like The New York Times or The Boston Globe, I would probably be fired. Want another hint? It is literally a word in the title. It is not “ur,” and it is definitely not “sic.” Why would it be?

It is in between those two words, even if they do not spell exactly what I am trying to say.

Summer blockbuster season is in full swing! This means I will be talking about films including “Lightyear,” which will be my next review, “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which comes out in July, and “Bullet Train,” due in August for instance. But before we get to those films, we have to talk about “Jurassic World: Dominion,” exhibit A for what is wrong with Hollywood. I know this sounds like an exaggeration, but it is kind of true. “Jurassic World: Dominion” is continuing the trend where we see elder actors return to play their roles another time, giving either prominent screentime, fan service, or possibly both.

Sony, who to be clear, is not in any way responsible for the “Jurassic Park” franchise and its distribution, is no stranger to this given the recent release of “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” where we see the original cast, minus Harold Ramis (RIP) return to bust ghosts. “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” the biggest movie of the past year, saw a ton of older characters return with their respective actors portraying them one more time. But I actually liked those films. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was as charming as it was nostalgic. It was kind of like “The Force Awakens” but more intimate. “Spider-Man: No Way Home” is a concept that could have made for a fun YouTube video, but they some how managed to turn into a wildly entertaining two and a half hour movie that honestly felt shorter than it really was at times. It was perfectly paced, relatable, and surprisingly dramatic. Although I do have mixed thoughts on the ending.

Whereas “Spider-Man: No Way Home” could have been taken as a concept that presents itself as a boardroom idea from out of touch executives, Kevin Feige, Amy Pascal, and director Jon Watts managed to make a movie that I will watch again and again for years. “Jurassic World: Dominion” on the other hand deserves to be struck by an asteroid. This is the worst “Jurassic” movie yet. “Dominion” is worse than “Jurassic Park III,” which despite its awfulness, can almost be perceived as something watchable under the influence of alcohol. And at least it is the shortest film in the franchise.

“Jurassic World: Dominion” is the opposite. In addition to being the longest film in its series, it tries to pack in so many ideas, some of which could be cool, but does not understand what to do with them. When I went to see “F9: The Fast Saga,” another Universal tentpole that made me want to gouge my eyes out, I was treated to an exclusive short film set in the world of the “Jurassic” franchise where we see dinosaurs roaming the planet, invading life as we know it. There is a fun scene at a drive-in that is also featured in the marketing of this movie, including a Progressive Insurance ad. NOTHING in this movie was as entertaining or watchable as that short. In fact, the whole unleashing of the dinosaurs plotline takes a backseat during the film because the kiddies do not want to see dinosaurs eating people! No. No. No. They want to see what Tim Cook would do if he had dinosaurs in his sights. That is what the kids like!

If you are new to Scene Before, hi, my name is Jack, and I like “Star Wars!” Time for yet another of one of my “Star Wars” comparisons! If anything, “Jurassic World: Dominion” is “Jurassic Park’s” answer to “The Rise of Skywalker,” one of the most poorly received “Star Wars” films of all time. Both films attempt to bring back older characters, conclude several movies that came before it, and I would like to add another rung to this ladder. If anything, “Jurassic World: Dominion” also feels like “The Last Jedi” because in “Jurassic” speak, “Fallen Kingdom” ends a certain way, only to have its follow-up barely do anything noteworthy with that film’s ending. The first act of “Dominion” feels like a giant “no” to particular elements to the film that came before it. That “no” supposedly came from Colin Trevorrow, who, get this, was once attached to direct what would become “The Rise of Skywalker.” At least “The Rise of Skywalker” was fun despite its flaws. At least “The Last Jedi” came off as a bold attempt to do something fresh in a historic franchise. Sure, this movie introduces an Apple-esque, genetics-based company, which we have not seen in other installments, but “The Last Jedi” actually got genuine reactions out of me, whether it meant laughing or cringing. “The Last Jedi” was a movie that swung for the fences in such a dramatic fashion only to fail. You can say “Jurassic World: Dominion” did that with its stacked cast, including franchise veterans Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. But that is all shrouded within a film that feels like it was crafted in a single corporate meeting.

I caught up on all of the “Jurassic Park” movies prior to seeing “Jurassic World: Dominion.” If you ever read my review for Marvel’s “Black Panther,” I claimed that the film has the most forced kiss in cinematic history. Given the film’s not so perfect chemistry between Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, 2015’s “Jurassic World” is an arguable competitor for such a throne. I have no idea how these two are still together. Their lines do not feel genuine, the only reason why they feel like they belong together is because the script has lines that indicate such a thing. Well that, and they are raising a child together at this point. Their relationship never feels earned, and I am not exactly fond of either of them. Sure, Chris Pratt has some occasional fun bits training and taming dinosaurs, and Bryce Dallas Howard has developed… Decency, I guess, since her 2015 debut. Compared to the 2015 “Jurassic World,” these two sequels have admittedly gone downhill in terms of story and character development in the same way that they have gone downhill with epic dinosaur action. While I was never a fan of Bryce Dallas Howard in the original “Jurassic World,” I at least thought her two nephews were well written for who they were. I barely remember anyone specific in this latest installment. Yes, I know of the characters in this movie, but I could barely tell you about any of their quirks or anything remotely positive about them. With each installment in the “Jurassic” saga, less and less soul is there. I am not as wowed or engaged as I once was with the ideas this franchise is known for.

That is not to say there is no tension or stakes in “Jurassic World” whatsoever. Speaking of Bryce Dallas Howard, there is one scene in the film that is exclusively between her and a dinosaur. It is one of the quietest moments of the entire picture. It goes on for a minute or two, but I thought it was easily the most engaging segment of the two and a half hours we got. In a film whose dinosaur action is comparatively lesser than its counterparts, this was a welcome highlight.

The original “Jurassic Park,” much like its sequels, was synonymous with epic dinosaur action, but it successfully interweaved a human story with excellence. The cast played their characters to the best of their abilities and the script did them favors. I often think of the 1993 film as a visual achievement before anything else, showcasing effects that continue to hold up to this day, but it does not mean the story is an afterthought. The idea is simple. People create dinosaurs, dinosaurs eat people, and the main characters try to survive to the very end. There is more to it, but the movie gives you enough reasons within a couple hours to make you invested in the story and characters. It makes you root for the characters running away from the dinosaurs. The characters in “Jurassic World: Dominion” lacked such charisma, and therefore, the movie suffers as a result.

Even when the film has an okay idea on how to give a proper motivation for its characters, such as Maisie Lockwood who spends the movie, wanting more, simply put, it does not result in a satisfying progression. Maisie’s respective performer, Isabella Sermon, does a fine job with the material given to her, but her lines and motivation seem surface level and do not add to the film’s entertainment value. That is if there even is any to begin with. This film had a couple okay concepts in addition to Maisie’s desires. There was a dinosaur black market. There was a chase scene between Chris Pratt and a dinosaur that had Tom Cruise “Mission: Impossible” vibes. Even bringing back the original cast could have worked! Although the script failed to bring these characters into a classy, compelling story. But you also have these comparatively boring concepts like a Tim Cook wannabe doing research on dinosaurs, not to mention locusts of all things antagonizing everyone it can find. Because when I think big, loud dinosaur movies… I think locusts… Come on.

“Jurassic Park” is one of the best major motion pictures of its time. What Steven Spielberg and crew were able to do with the aesthetical nature and effects in “Jurassic Park” influenced a multitude of content that came after. Sadly, the sequels, for the most part, fail to recapture the magic of the original, with “Dominion” being the latest example. If you want my two cents, if it is a Friday, you have nothing to do, “Jurassic Park” is a great option for your movie night. I also recommend “The Lost World” to a degree, and “Jurassic World,” despite its lackluster characterization, is pretty and thrilling enough to get you through two hours. It is not exactly insulting, but it is somewhat dumbed down compared to the 1993 original. “Jurassic World: Dominion” makes the original “Jurassic World” look like “The Shawshank Redemption” in comparison. Do not watch this movie, do not support this movie. If you want to watch a more entertaining summer popcorn movie, give your money to “Top Gun: Maverick.” As a legacy sequel, “Maverick” honors its original counterpart, while also effectively progressing the life of a core character that was introduced many years ago. “Jurassic World: Dominion” fails with its new characters, it fails with its old characters, and most of all, it fails with me, the one who paid $16, not including an online fee and a 3D surcharge, to see this unforgivable abomination.

In the end, “Jurassic World: Dominion” managed to do the impossible. It managed to make a feature-length, big budget story heavily revolving around dinosaurs, and have it come off as the most tiring concept ever realized. Even after watching “Fallen Kingdom” I did not feel as tired. Maybe it is because this is the sixth movie, but “Jurassic Park” does not feel special anymore. Its novelty has worn off. Sure, this is a huge moneymaker for Universal, and I would not be surprised if we saw more content with the “Jurassic” label attached in the coming years despite this movie being marketed as “the conclusion of the Jurassic era,” but my hope is that something is done to heavily revitalize this iconic brand. “Jurassic Park” is a literal innovation to cinema. Ever since, we have gotten uninteresting characters, cookie cutter dialogue, and despite some okay concepts, the execution ends up being a far cry from what such concepts can promise. I am going to give “Jurassic World: Dominion” a generous 3/10.

And I have a feeling that could change to a 2 at any point in time…

“Jurassic World: Dominion” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new Pixar film, “Lightyear.” I went to go see this film twice, which should be a hint as to what I thought about it. Stay tuned for more thoughts as they come along! 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 “Jurassic World: Dominion?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a franchise you think has overstayed its welcome? I apologize to Universal, but unless “Fast X” delivers something fresh, “Fast & Furious” might be my answer… Either way, let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022): A Bloated, Mind-Melting, Exciting Ride Through the Multiverse

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Everything Everywhere All at Once” is directed by Daniels, the same team behind the 2016 film “Swiss Army Man” featuring Daniel Radcliffe as a dead body who communicates by farting. And if you think that is weird, you are not ready for “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” possibly the greatest title in film history. That said, “Everything Everywhere All at Once” stars Michelle Yeoh (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Crazy Rich Asians), Stephanie Hsu (The Path, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), Ke Hey Quan (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Goonies), Jenny Slate (The Secret Life of Pets, Gifted), Harry Shum Jr. (Glee, Shadowhunters), James Hong (Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise, Blade Runner), and Jamie Lee Curtis (Halloween, Knives Out). This film, or in a case like the one we are dealing with, this drug trip, centers around the character of Evelyn Quan Wang, a Chinese immigrant who owns a laundromat with her husband. When financial stability becomes an issue for Wang, she suddenly finds herself on a journey through the multiverse where she learns about the many lives she could have lived. She uses this newfound knowledge to hopefully save her own universe, along with several others, from a cataclysm.

I want to start off this review by reminding you that I waited a couple months to see this movie. I knew what it was. I knew the plot. I knew that a lot of people liked it. But due to other commitments, other movies, not to mention planning to see it once or twice only to have my plans scrapped, I had to wait on “Everything Everywhere All at Once” like I was in line at comic con. Fun fact, I am at a time of my life where I typically enjoy going to the movies by myself. I have nothing against going with friends, but there are many cases where I would prefer going to the cinema alone because as a reviewer, this allows me to concentrate harder on what’s on screen. But one reason why I waited so long to see “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is because if I wanted to go see this movie by myself, I could have. I would have probably had a good time. That said, this looked like a movie I had to see with someone else. So I invited my dad, told him I think he would like the film, and we were going to hopefully have a ball.

Without giving much detail, I think my previous sentiment is one to keep in mind, should you decide to watch “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” because it is a movie that is watchable on your own, but the more people you have around you, the better the experience will probably end up being. It is the same reason why comedy shows are better with sold out crowds. The laughter is that much more contagious.

Also I will remind you, this is a multiverse-spanning movie. The previous two Marvel Cinematic Universe movies have brought audiences into the multiverse in their own ways and have done ridiculous numbers in terms of the box office. Unlike those films, “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is an original idea. Of those two previously indicated unoriginal ideas, one of them literally has the words “Multiverse of Madness” in the title. That said, “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” is THE REAL MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS. Eat your heart out, Doctor Strange! I contend that “Everything Everywhere All at Once” could end up permanently owning the crown for the greatest multiverse-centric movie of all time. It is that good.

If you have been following me this year, I have talked about a specific idea within certain films. “CODA” and “Belle” are prime examples of this. That theme is a perfect bridging between extraordinary and ordinary. While those films showcase this idea to excellent degrees with a non-deaf, music-obsessed child living in a deaf family and a shy, rural-housed teenage girl entering a social media paradise where she becomes a star, these are not new ideas. Heroes always start off ordinary and then find ways to become extraordinary throughout their adventure. If they stayed ordinary, they would be one-dimensional or boring. But if you break down “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” it is not necessarily a film about saving the multiverse as much as it is about keeping a family together, keeping each other from going bizzerk. Because within the confines of alternate realities, mastering kung fu, superstardom, the main family of the film has to deal with the potential closure of their business, potential divorce, and as far as the parents are concerned, potential rebellion from the daughter.

Speaking of potential, I think “Everything Everywhere All at Once” had a ton of potential, and that potential was perfectly realized within this film’s small budget. For comparison, another recent multiverse-centric story, “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” had a budget of $200 million. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” on the other hand… A non-sequel, original idea not based on any preexisting intellectual property, not set in a cinematic universe whatsoever, cost $25 million to make. That is nothing to sweat at by any means. $25 million is a lot of money. Plus, there are movies that came out this year that cost less to make. “Hustle,” the last movie I reviewed, was less expensive. But to be fair, it was more limited in its theatrical release. That said, “Everything Everywhere All at Once” supports the notion that smaller can be better. The more time you spend on crafting a compelling story and the less time you spend on the spectacle and paying Patrick Stewart to play Professor X again, the better the payoff.

Through her portrayal of Evelyn, Michelle Yeoh encapsulates what it is like to be a normal human being with financial issues. We see her trek through the film while her ordinary life continues to go down the crapper. Changes come in every which way and it is not only affecting her, but the people she knows. This movie plays around with the idea of one person seeing not only other versions of themselves, but their jealousy towards the lives the alternate selves tend to enjoy. Evelyn sees versions of herself that excel at kung fu or acting. If I saw myself in other universes living as say a successful singer or a baseball player, I would definitely consider rethinking my life choices or finding a way to embody my other selves.

Throughout the film’s runtime, we are heavily exposed to other members of the Wang family. Those who appear alongside Evelyn are her husband, Waymond (Ke Huy Quan), her daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu), and her father, Gong Gong (James Hong). Each character has their own individualities and quirks that make the film worthwhile. There is an incredible element of the film where we see the supposed differences between Evelyn and Joy in terms of how they live their lives, how they view the world. It makes for some entertaining moments of the film while also effectively progressing each character arc.

I also have to give a major shoutout to Jamie Lee Curtis, who gives an incredible performance as Deirdre Beaubeirdre, an IRS inspector who takes no nonsense whatsoever. I admire Jamie Lee Curtis as an actress, so I hope this is not taken the wrong way, but her character does such a great job at appearing so boring and yet so fiendish. She looks like she could ruin someone’s life in a snap. Of the film’s supporting characters, she is arguably the highlight.

“Everything Everywhere All at Once” is an arguable contender to be the strangest and yet most ambitious film I have watched in my life. One of my biggest compliments I gave to “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” is how they handled Benedict Cumberbatch’s variants from a looks perspective. When it comes to Evelyn in “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” I would say a similar assessment applies. But the script and direction of “Everything Everywhere All at Once” gives Michelle Yeoh a greater excuse to provide a more solid, perhaps down to earth performance than the one Cumberbatch gave in his multiversal feature. There is so much that happens in this movie, not only in terms of the story, but the overall scope of… everything… At various points, the movie hinges to a precipice where things are almost completely out of control. There is a moment in this movie where I could see a lot of people thinking it is crazy enough, only to shock themselves in a matter of minutes with what comes up afterwards. If you are looking for a predictable movie, you have come to the wrong place. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is probably the most unpredictable movie I have seen since “Parasite.”

If you have not watched it yet, you need to check this movie out, and as much as I could go on about it, I am going to let you see for yourself, because if you are anything like my dad when he sat next to me in the theater, taking every single scene in… I think you should prepare to drop some unexpected f-bombs at the screen the moment you witness some of the wondrous sights this one of a kind feature seals within its doors.

In the end, “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is one of the best movies I have ever seen. A24 is a crazy distributor. I either truly like a movie from them, which was the case with say “Eighth Grade” or “The Disaster Artist.” Or I attempt to make a case as to why some of their films are atrociously awful like “Midsommar” or “Zola.” There never feels like there is an between at times. And even if there is, I still have something supposedly notable or passionate to say about their films. Even “The Last Movie Star,” starring Burt Reynolds, which I thought was the definition of mediocre, elicited a passionate reaction out of me as to why I did not particularly think that film was the best. “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” which is certainly above mediocre, is no exception to letting me bring out the passion. Oddly enough, I have a feeling I could somehow end up appreciating it more with a second viewing. If the jump after a second viewing is anything like the one I had for “Belle” recently, it could potentially be in the conversation for my top 5 movies of all time. If there is one movie that you should see by the end of the year, it is this one. I am going to give “Everything Everywhere All at Once” a 10/10.

“Everything Everywhere All at Once” is now playing in theaters and is available to watch on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for my next reviews, which are for the brand new blockbusters, “Jurassic World: Dominion” and “Lightyear!” I watched both movies this week and I am excited to share my thoughts! 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 “Everything Everywhere All at Once?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie that you saw this year? New or old, doesn’t matter. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!