Science Fiction

Captain America: Brave New World (2025): The First Post-Endgame MCU Film I Did Not Enjoy…

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Captain America: Brave New World” is directed by Julius Onah (The Cloverfield Paradox, Luce) and stars Anthony Mackie (Synchronic, Twisted Metal), Danny Ramirez (Top Gun: Maverick, The Gifted), Shira Haas (Bodies, Unorthodox), Carl Lumbly (Cagney & Lacey, M.A.N.T.I.S.), Xosha Roquemore (Precious, The Mindy Project), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), Liv Tyler (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Armageddon), Tim Blake Nelson (Watchmen, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed), and Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Blade Runner). This is the 35th movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it is about Sam Wilson, the new Captain America, as he investigates a conspiracy regarding President Thaddeus Ross.

It is that time again. Another Marvel movie is here. Many people will tell you that their interest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been on a decline since “Endgame.” Some are experiencing said decline faster than others… But I am here to tell you that Marvel has yet to let me down since that 2019 blockbuster came out. That is unless you count the TV side, which has had its hits like “WandaVision,” but if I were to be honest with you, “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” could have been better. I did not hate the show. In fact, for television, it seems as if no expense was spared in terms of the production. I just find it to be rather forgettable.

That said, “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” did have its moments. It was also a solid introduction to Anthony Mackie’s Sam as the new Captain America. I thought the way they went about handling that arc was engaging. It set up the character effectively for further stories to commence, including “Captain America: Brave New World.”

Regardless of how I felt watching “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” I was excited for “Captain America: Brave New World.” I thought the trailers did a good job at not giving a ton of information away, while also teasing highlights to look forward to. Plus, even if some people are fatigued by Marvel, there is no denying that it is in a zone right now between “Deadpool & Wolverine” on the film side and “Agatha All Along” on the TV side. Does “Captain America: Brave New World” continue this hot streak?

Ehh…

Marvel Studios/Courtesy of Marvel Studios – © 2024 MARVEL.

I hate to say it, but I think the movie side of the MCU has experienced its weakest installment in years. I am of the unpopular opinion that phase 4 had no bad movies in it. Not every film was a banger in the way that “Spider-Man: No Way Home” was, but I did not hate any of the phase 4 films from Marvel. I also think all the phase 5 movies are good. Yes, even “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” Yes, even “The Marvels.” Both movies were big, explosive bursts of fun. “Captain America: Brave New World” on the other hand was missing the MCU magic.

I have referenced Martin Scorsese before when talking about comic book movies, but I think when it comes to his philosophy on the subgenre, “Captain America: Brave New World” honestly matches parts of it. While the film definitely has human characters expressing human emotions, the screenplay sometimes feels like it was written by artificial intelligence. I say this not only because the dialogue sounds stale and robotic, but also due to how this film essentially takes what has worked in previous films and shoved it into this one.

The film is definitely a “cinematic experience,” but it is cinematic in the sense that it has the scope of a theme park ride that offers very few genuine thrills. If this were Universal Orlando, this would be the equivalent to “Race Through New York Starring Jimmy Fallon.” It is a timewaster full of connections that some people will probably understand right away but will just as likely fly over lots of people’s heads.

Marvel Studios/Courtesy of Marvel Studios – © 2024 MARVEL.

“Captain America: Brave New World” is marketed as a… well, “Captain America” movie. But kind of like how “Civil War” was also a mini “Avengers” film, this is also secretly a film that if you break it down, is a blink you’ll miss it sequel to another part of the MCU. One of the problems with the MCU I have addressed is that as the universe gets bigger, it makes it that much harder to keep up with all the material. And for those who did keep up, chances are some of those people will not retain every detail. There is a chance I would have enjoyed this movie more had I vividly remembered certain details from earlier in the MCU.

What makes this film the weakest the MCU given in years is perhaps the idea that it builds off of so much that has already been established to the point where it comes off more as a continuation than an original idea. You do not necessarily have to see “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” to understand this movie, but I think one can argue that viewers may appreciate this movie more if they watch that show. However, this movie is essentially a continuation of an MCU property that I am surprised is being brought back to the spotlight all these years later. Is this a good continuation? Not really. If anything, it adds to the overall convolution of this movie to the point where it almost lacks an identity. The MCU often receives complaints for how villains are handled in their projects, but at least in a lot of their projects, I can pinpoint who the big baddie usually is. That is not the case this time around.

Sometimes, “Brave New World” is a watered-down version of “The Winter Soldier.” The main characters may be different people this time around to some degree, but the main trio is structured similarly to that 2014 banger. The film emphasizes the presence of a new Falcon sidekick. We already met this sidekick on “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” but he has a much bigger presence this time around. That said, I am honestly not loving Danny Ramirez’s portrayal of Joaquin Torres. I have nothing against Ramirez, the actor. If anything, I am not a fan of the material he is given through the direction and the script. Going back to my distaste for the dialogue, this is especially noticeable with Joaquin. The character kind of reminds me of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man if you decided to remove his knack for humor. He is awkward, and sounds like he is giving off multiple variations of the same line over and over again, even if the next line is completely different from the last. The movie is likely going for a Batman & Robin vibe with its relationship. But if anything, Falcon sounds like a Robin parody.

Marvel Studios/Courtesy of Marvel Studios – © 2024 MARVEL.

Holy Red Hulk, Captain!

“Captain America: Brave New World,” despite all the otherworldly shenanigans and science fiction elements, appears to be more grounded than some of the other recent MCU films. If there is one character that cartoonifies this film, it would probably be Joaquin. There are more installments in the cinematic universe to come, so hopefully, Joaquin gets some better material than this.

This film is led by Anthony Mackie, who has done an excellent job playing Sam Wilson through the MCU’s previous installments. I am glad to see him get his own movie after all this time. While I wish the film itself were better, the long wait pays off in spades in another regard, because Mackie dominates the screen. People talk about actors like Ryan Reynolds and Tom Cruise oozing movie star level charisma. While Anthony Mackie may not be a movie star to the degree those two actors are, I think he could have been in another life because he kills it as the lead.

One common complaint I hear about the MCU, not to mention comic book movies in general, is that they all tend to end the same way where you have this big battle where the effects are dialed up to an 11. Sometimes to the point where said effects lack any realism at all. I do not always mind these sorts of climaxes because you have to end the movie on a big note. That said, the big note in this case had something missing. This film’s climax in no way feels grand or exciting. In fact, when the climax draws to a close, I thought we were on the verge of something else happening. I thought there would be another big bad to worry about or a last minute twist. That is not what happens. The climax of this film, while it has one or two decent elements, was underwhelming. Part of it might as well be blamed on the marketing. There was a character in the marketing that had me convinced they would be a middling threat of some kind, but they turned out to be a bit bigger. That said, when the movie goes down, said character felt as middling of a threat as they were in the trailer.

I also hate to say this, but the special effects did not save this movie. This is something I have noticed quite a bit in some recent Marvel projects. While I cannot name a single MCU movie or show where every effect is bad, there are quite a few projects where some effects that are noticeably sub-par. “Thor: Love and Thunder” is a good example. Per usual, Thor’s lightning effects look great. There are some good fire effects. But if you take certain shots from the movie, like one of Heimdall’s son’s floating head, that is not up to the quality I would expect from a cinematic universe that has garnered praise for delivering one spectacle after another. This leads me to say that “Captain America: Brave New World” may have the weakest special effects I have seen in an MCU film. Not only is the CGI obvious at times, but distractingly so. It took me out of the movie. This complaint mostly pertains to the way the movie handles Sam Wilson’s Captain America suit, which is established at the start of the film to be made of highly advanced vibranium in perhaps the most expository way possible. Every time the movie highlights some piece of vibranium technology, it looks holographic. It looks so unrealistic. I hate to say that because vibranium is not a new concept to the MCU. Just go watch the “Black Panther” movies. I do not have humungous problems with the vibranium effects in those films. Though when it is applied to Sam’s suit, it is rather goofy-looking.

I understand that “Captain America” as a brand is heavily associated with the big screen. As a concept, it is one of the most prominent in the MCU. There is a reason why something like this movie, titled “Captain America” ended up in theaters, whereas “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” which is about previous supporting characters and sidekicks, went to Disney+. Although just because the name “Captain America” is cinema-friendly, does not mean the same is true for the product behind the name. When you break this movie down on selling points, it feels like something that should be put in theaters. The Captain America name, the star power of Harrison Ford, Red Hulk, select scenes being shot with digital IMAX cameras… But tonally, this movie comes off as a lame Disney+ series that got condensed into a two hour movie. Certain scenes and storylines feel rushed, underdeveloped, and poorly written. When I was talking to my friend as we were leaving this film, one of the first things I said to her in regards to my initial thoughts was that the movie “flies by.” One can see that as a compliment. But I think the movie took notes from “Spaceballs” and dialed itself into “ludacrous speed.” I love a good fast-paced movie. I can also say I was never completely bored by this film. But the film seems to end at a point that leaves me unsatisfied.

To no one’s surprise, there is extra material during the end credits of this film. Unfortunately though, or perhaps fortunately if you are in a rush to get home after the mediocrity of this film, there is not really anything exciting in the post-credits scene. I have seen some MCU products do a good job at teasing something new. This does not really do that. Instead of a tease, it is more of a reminder of something that I already thought would be coming. I guess if you are not familiar with the MCU this could be an okay credits scene. But this is one of the weaker ones I have seen in this cinematic universe.

Marvel Studios/Courtesy of Marvel Studios – © 2024 MARVEL.

In the end, “Captain America: Brave New World” is not up to the quality I expect from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I do not expect every MCU film to be perfect, but I think it is safe to say that the timeline has spoiled me with one decent project after another. I was looking forward “Brave New World.” The trailers looked great. It had the ingredients for an intriguing watch. But the culmination of such a recipe left a bad taste in my mouth. I will not deny there are good things about the movie. The action, for the most part, is fun to watch. I particularly enjoyed seeing the shield move chaotically through the screen in multiple scenes. Anthony Mackie is an excellent lead. I would watch a fifth “Captain America” movie if he were the star. But between the bad special effects, unmemorable characters and story, bland at best dialogue, and underwhelming climax. The negatives stood out for me more than the positives. That is a sentiment I hate to use regarding any movie, but as a fan of the MCU, it particularly hurts saying that in this case. I am going to give “Captain America: Brave New World” a 5/10.

“Captain America: Brave New World” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Paddington in Peru” and “Love Hurts.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Captain America: Brave New World?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of negativity, what is your LEAST favorite Marvel movie since “Avengers: Endgame?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Love Me (2024): Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun Engage in Robotic Romance

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Love Me” is a feature-length directorial debut from Sam and Andy Zuchero and stars Kristen Stewart (Twilight, Spencer) and Steven Yeun (Minari, The Walking Dead) in a film where a buoy and a satellite form a relationship following the end of humanity.

“Love Me” is the last new release I saw in January, and if you have been keeping track, I have been lamenting this month as it was unfolding. Thankfully, the month so far has been a tad better than I expected. And by that I mean, still bad for movies, but not outright horrible. That said, the annual monthly dumpster fire for film is not over yet, we still have to determine whether “Love Me” will join the rejects of January, or the one shining light known as “The Colors Within.” That film honestly made me forget about the problems of the world for a little bit.

Thankfully, “Love Me” is worth seeing, and it is quite a thinker. This is a film that I liked while watching it, and continue to appreciate more after the car ride home.

Like many other films, “Love Me” is its comparisons. While “Love Me” is not entirely animated, I cannot help but compare this film at times to “Wall-E” and “The Wild Robot.” This film, like those, is set in the future, and primarily centers around artificially intelligent characters. It also highlights humanity’s resistance to maintaining the earth. Although unlike those films, our focus on human characters is never seen in the present, it is always in the past.

The film centers around two robots, a buoy sitting in the middle of earth’s waters, and a satellite up in space looking down on the planet. The two meet, with the buoy seeming to continuously maintain a sense of curiosity. The robot is asking questions about anything that comes to mind. She learns about life, humanity, the Internet, and it results in a very creative relationship, if you can call it that, between the two core characters.

The film stars Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. That said, if you are looking forward to seeing them physically, you may not see as much of their actual selves as you would expect.

That said, their physical selves do have a good amount of screentime, but they are not there from the beginning. They show up later on and serve the robots’ stories. Both of them do a good job in the film as this lovey dovey couple who have a vlog. The couple also serves as a foundation for the buoy’s desires to be human. The buoy gets an impression on what it is like to live as a human just by watching these two engage in certain activities. We see the buoy in a sense trying to simulate those activities through digital animation. The animation clearly does not look high-tech. It is not up to the level of Pixar if you want a cinematic example. If anything, it looks like it is out of a “Sims” game. That seems to be the artistic intention, but still.

Despite the seemingly intentional schlocky animation, I will not deny that the film is pleasing to the eye. The color palette is often dazzling, especially during the scenes where we see the buoy floating in the water. The film is often bright, well lit, and there are also several shots involving the sun that look particularly great.

The film very much highlights the joys of being human, while also recognizing that maybe we are not perfect. Sticking with the human characters, who we come to know as Deja and Liam, I notice that never once do they leave their home, nor do their simulated counterparts. It seems to highlight the shift humanity is experiencing right now with shopping, watching media, and the shrinkage of social lives. We seem to be getting more sheltered and less adventurous. We find out the couple’s “date night” vlog is literally just them staying home, cooking, and watching television. It is not to say that staying home cannot be considered a date night. But I am under the impression the film is suggesting that in the future, we will see a significant increase in date nights at home.

Going back to “Wall-E,” one thing that the film tries to convince its audience is that two robots can fall in love. In a way, “Love Me” seems to be the anti-”Wall-E.” Because it is very much about a flawed relationship. It shows the struggles two robots have with such a concept. Likely because they are not programmed to love in the way that it would come naturally to a human. They are programmed to do other things. If that’s the case, you almost have to suspend your disbelief when watching this film. That said, this story also falls in line with the idea of artificial intelligence’s continued evolution to the point where it could one day become more human than human. We see the film’s protagonist, who we come to know as Me, establish itself as a “lifeform,” even though we know the character was manufactured.

If I had to list any negatives during the movie, I would say that the story does take a bit of time to get into gear. I think if I had to name a weakest part of the film, it would be the first ten minutes or so. The film also kind of reminds me a bit of “Ron’s Gone Wrong” because the robot voices happen to be very repetitive. This is especially noticeable with the satellite. When the satellite, who we come to know as Iam, literally pronounced “I am,” says a certain word or phrase, it often sounds exactly the same as it does previously. Much like the movie’s digital animations that turned me off, this appears to be an artistic intention. It perhaps highlights how computerized the bot’s voice sounds, but it still got on my nerves a little bit.

Despite these negatives, I still recommend the movie. There is not a lot that has come out in January that I think you should rush out in see, but “Love Me” is definitely worth your time.

© thelove.me

In the end, “Love Me” is a movie with a small cast, but a big impact. Not only is this a movie that I can see myself watching again, but there is a possibility that I will appreciate it to a greater degree the more times I watch it. It is a film that highlights what it means to be human, while also recognizing the issues we as a species are dealing with, and potentially creating. I have not heard a ton of word of mouth on this movie, so hopefully I can spread some for those checking this post out. I highly recommend “Love Me” and I am going to give it a 7/10.

“Love Me” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “One of Them Days!” Stay tuned! But before we get to that, Scene Before is on the cusp of 800 posts, and I intend to celebrate with yet another look at my Blu-ray collection. I have been waiting to do this post for a long time. I am glad I am finally getting around to it once again. If you want to see these posts 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 “Love Me?” What did you think about it? Or, given the theme of romance and with Valentine’s Day coming up, is there a movie that you plan to watch on Valentine’s Day this year? For me, every other year, I’ve been watching “Deadpool.” On top of coming out around the holiday, it is a solid love story with superb action scenes. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dog Man (2025): Part Dog, Part Man, All Mid

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dog Man” is directed by Peter Hastings, who also provides a few voices in the film, including the titular character. Joining him is a casting including Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Lil Rel Howrey (The Carmichael Show, Get Out), Isla Fisher (Tag, Now You See Me), Poppy Liu (No Good Deed, Sunnyside), Stephen Root (Office Space, Finding Nemo), Billy Boyd (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Outlander), and Ricky Gervais (Night at the Museum, The Office). This film is set after an event so nonsensical it might just work… Sewing a dog’s head onto a man’s body so both sides can live on as a singular being. The film follows Dog Man’s mission to bring a halt to Petey the Cat’s desire to stop all do-gooders.

My interest in “Dog Man” was almost next to none. There was no way I saw myself paying my hard earned money to see something like this. The trailers barely did anything to motivate me to go see it. I enjoy a good animated flick, but there was nothing about “Dog Man” that made me think it would be worth my time. The humor did not seem to land with me. The general tone felt overly silly for my taste. That said, I ended up watching the film at a free screening a week before it came out. They say the best things in life are free right? Well, that is not always true. Because “Dog Man” is just okay.

“Dog Man” is the latest DreamWorks animated movie. I am rather fond of DreamWorks. I grew up watching several of their animated titles. In fact, I recently rewatched one of my childhood films, “Kung Fu Panda,” and found more layers to unpack from it that I probably did not realize were there when I was watching it for the first time at eight years old. Not every DreamWorks movie hits, but “Kung Fu Panda” packs a mighty punch. Similar to that movie, I can see kids watching “Dog Man” when they are young, revisiting it at a later age, and unpacking more of the film’s lessons. The problem is, I am wondering if they will enjoy the movie as much as they did when they were growing up. This film definitely has material that adults can appreciate, but I think the kids will end up latching onto this film more.

The film cleverly handles Dog Man’s communication. A lot of animated movies will personify animal characters, including dogs. Dog Man is an exception to the rule. Despite having man in his name, the communication style is strictly canine. He does not speak English. He only communicates through barks and howls. Sometimes it is a little over the top, but there are also times where it works. As for the character himself, he is a decently fleshed out center of the film. The story does a good job at meshing the personalities of the two characters we see during the first few minutes as they merge and become one.

You can kind of say this about other major studios too, but I feel like we are experiencing an era in DreamWorks history where each film delivers a different animation style than the previous one. Sure, “Kung Fu Panda 4” felt rather familiar to its predecessors. But if you look back at “The Bad Guys” or “The Wild Robot,” you would probably get a sense that you are looking at something that could only exist in its respective universe. Granted, those two properties are also based on books that have a distinctive style of their own. “Dog Man” is no exception. I saw one review that compared the animation style to “Captain Underpants,” another book series that also became a DreamWorks movie. Turns out, both book properties are by the same author, and “Dog Man” was originally teased in a “Captain Underpants” book. It only makes sense that the two productions look alike.

For the record, I did not watch the “Captain Underpants” movie. If I had to pinpoint something “Dog Man” reminds me of, and I do not know how many people would actually agree with me, the first thing that comes to mind is the “Backyard Sports” series of video games. Remember those? You had the animated characters with the crazy thin eyes? Every time I look at a character’s eyes in this film, I am convinced they were borrowed from a “Backyard Sports” game.

If you go into this movie expecting realism, you are going to be severely disappointed. I mean, come on. The movie is literally about what happens following the stitching of a dog and a man. The movie has a fast-paced, TikTok sort of style to it, to the point where just about every line of dialogue is incredibly piped up and quickly edited. It throws a lot of information in such a short runtime. The film does poke fun at certain tendencies we see in everyday life, especially from pets. We see Dog Man on the chase, completing his task, but he gets distracted by a squirrel. The main rivalry of the film is between a dog and a cat. The cat has a variety of evil plans to capture his rival, including the use of a vacuum cleaner. What is this, “Spaceballs?” The movie reminds me a bit of “The Mitchells vs. the Machines.” Because upon my first watch of both projects, I got the sense that there were so many blink you’ll miss it details to the point where you would have to watch the movie a second time to see what flew over your head. Thankfully, I understood the film’s basic plot, structure, and character motivations. It is not like the film is broken. The film is paced like “Run Lola Run” and contains perhaps a thousand times more instances of dialogue.

That said, even if I did have any interest in picking up on details I missed the first time, I simply do not see myself watching “Dog Man” again. The film is not for me. I do not have a lot of younger children in my social circles, but I have heard from people either in conversation or online that they know kids who love the books on which this film is based. Maybe they will enjoy the movie, but I am not sure how the film will age. The film has good lessons about being a role model and how some people emulate their parents, but it is surrounded by a visually obnoxious series of scenes that almost overwhelm the senses.

Speaking of details, that is also where the devil seems to lie. By that I mean, the devil probably came in and fiddled with them. Because there are parts of this film that are genuinely funny. In fact, there is one gag involving characters exchanging money that had me in stitches. It makes no sense but that is why it works. But going back to this film’s TikTok pace, that can most definitely apply to the humor as well. Forget a mile a minute, the humor in “Dog Man” flies at a kilometer per minute! Having so many jokes could be a good thing. Again, going back to “The Mitchells vs. the Machines,” that film had me laughing nonstop and uncontrollably. That is a film where if I watched it with the windows open, I would probably get a noise complaint from a neighbor. They would probably think I’m a madman. But in the case of “Dog Man,” the movie shoves so much comedy into its script that a lot of it inevitably fails to stick the landing.

The film also has a noticeable amount of news exposition. This is common in a lot of movies and television, but I will give credit to the news sequences in this film having a unique flair to them. Granted, they did add to the film’s overall obnoxiousness, but I will not deny that Isla Fisher does a good job in her role as Sarah Hatoff, a news reporter with tons of screentime.

In the end, “Dog Man” is just fine. I am not a dog person, and I am barely a people person. But I can say, as a movie person, this is as middle of the road as animation gets. There is nothing remotely offensive about “Dog Man.” At times it is undoubtedly creative, but the film ultimately prioritizes quantity over quality. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to comedy. Having a lot of jokes is great, but it is better when all of them land. A noticeable number of them did not do that for me. This is not my least favorite DreamWorks film, but I am still going to give “Dog Man” a 5/10.

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

© thelove.me

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Love Me,” the brand new sci-fi film starring Kristen Stewart and Steven Yeun. Stay tuned! If you want to see this review 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 “Dog Man?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have any experience with the “Dog Man” books? Are they any good? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (2024): Colorful Spectacle and Obnoxious Dialogue Overshadows Stakes in This Threequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is directed by Jeff Fowler, who also directed the previous “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies. This film stars Jim Carrey (Batman Forever, The Mask), Ben Schwartz (Parks and Recreation, The Afterparty), Krysten Ritter (Veronica Mars, Gilmore Girls), Shemar Moore (S.W.A.T., Criminal Minds), Colleen O’Shaughnessey (Digimon, Naruto), James Marsden (X-Men, Superman Returns), Tika Sumpter (Mixed-ish, Ride Along), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, The Suicide Squad), and Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, John Wick). This film follows Sonic and his team as they face a new enemy, Shadow the Hedgehog. When the team realizes the potential dangers of Shadow’s power, they choose to band together with an unlikely ally to stop him.

Video game adaptations have had an iffy history at best. Yes, on the television side you have hits like “The Last of Us” and “Arcane,” but as far as movies go, there is not a single title I imagine most people would consider to be a masterpiece. Sure, the 1995 “Mortal Kombat” had some charm to it. It is definitely not a horrible movie. Same goes with 2023’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” which I have no plans to watch ever again, but I would be lying to you if I said it was inferior to 1993’s “Super Mario Bros.” adaptation.

The “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies have made for an interesting franchise. And I do believe “interesting” is the best word to use in this case. Because neither of the two movies I have seen up to this point have been bad. I thought the first one in particular is quite fun and offers replay value. It has a simple but effective story. Ben Schwartz is a great pick to voice Sonic. Jim Carrey as Robotnik may go down as some of the best casting of the decade. The climax is really fun. Overall, it is a good time for all ages. Then we get to “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” which maintains some of the positives of the original. You have good visual effects, nice sound design, and a pretty cool third act. But the film also drags because there is an abysmally irritating wedding subplot that makes no sense. There were other things to make up for it. I even gave the film a 6/10 in my review. But that score was pretty generous if you asked me. For the record, I bought the original “Sonic the Hedgehog” and watched it at home after checking it out in the cinema. The same cannot be said for the sequel.

They say you are only as good as your last project. And while I had a positive experience with “Sonic the Hedgehog 2,” I still found it disappointing. So my expectations for “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” while they were not sitting right at rock bottom, were also not that high. But those expectations shot up with a pretty solid marketing campaign. I thought by the end it gave away a little too much, but the trailers were funny and promised something a little darker than the other two installments. I was ultimately onboard.

So what did I think? Eh, the movie’s fine.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is in fact a step up from “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” But the movie is also nowhere near as good as the original “Sonic the Hedgehog.” Though if I had to name a positive for not only this movie, but all three movies so far, it is that they maintain a sense of consistency. They all feel like they belong in the same universe and work well off each other. As a trilogy, the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies are not quite as good as say “Lord of the Rings.” But just like “Lord of the Rings,” the movies feel perfectly interconnected. Coincidentally, both of these trilogies are done through a singular vision. All the “Lord of the Rings” movies were directed by Peter Jackson, and all the “Sonic the Hedgehog” installments were helmed by Jeff Fowler. If there is anyone who is perhaps responsible for “Sonic’s” consistency, Fowler is perhaps the most likely candidiate. They even got the same writers for all three movies. Pat Casey and Josh Miller wrote the first movie together. The two ended up coming back for the sequels along with John Whittington.

This leads me to perhaps the most robust assertion I could perhaps make about “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you really liked “Sonic the Hedgehog” and its sequel, you are going to like “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” If you find those first two movies to be bad, then chances are you will feel the same way about this latest installment. As for me, I made it clear I liked the first two movies. I did not love either of them, in fact, I would even say “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” is barely passable, so to have the third one find itself on the lower end of my positive scale comes as almost no surprise whatsoever.

One of my complaints about the second movie was the dialogue. For the record, the dialogue in the second film feels similar to the first. But every other minute Sonic is spewing out some random pop culture joke or some semblance of words that come close to such a thing and not many of them land. This film seems to maintain my dialogue distaste. There is a lot of obnoxious chit chat and a lot of the lines feel overly cartoony. Yes, I know this film has animated characters. But even for something like this, it comes off as overblown. That said, the film does still get the occasional laugh from our hero characters.

However, the biggest laughs in the film, perhaps unsurprisingly, come from Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is back in this film doing double duty. Not only is he back for his third portrayal of Doctor Ivo Robotnik, but he is also playing his grandfather, Professor Gerald Robotnik. Seeing Jim Carrey play both of these characters at the same time makes for a weird, wacky, and fun experience like no other. I think Carrey is the best part of these movies. I say that even though I do think his material in the second film hindered his performance a bit. As for this third film, it is nice to see Carrey getting some funny, ludicrous material to work with. Every time he was on screen, I had a grin on my face.

This film also introduces a new hedgehog character, Shadow. Keanu Reeves plays the role, which I think is a great choice. Having heard the character’s voice in certain video games, this is fairly decent match. Also when it comes to Shadow’s design, Reeves’ voice seems to mesh well with the character. But as much as I liked the trailers for this film, my one worry was that Shadow would sound too much like Keanu Reeves was playing himself. I felt a lot of John Wick-isms in his execution. I like “John Wick,” but one problem I have with celebrity voice casting is that the celebrities sound so much like themselves that they fail to blend in with their character. Having seen Shadow, I can say there are scenes where Keanu clearly sounds like he is playing himself, but by no means is he phoning it in. I saw a little bit of Keanu in the performance, yet simultaneously, I saw all Shadow if that makes any sense.

Also to a certain degree, I liked seeing Shadow’s backstory. While I am one to complain about this movie being a bit obnoxious at times, I think Shadow’s backstory occasionally makes for some solid visual storytelling. There is even some decent dialogue. The film also develops a nice little commonality between Sonic and Shadow, particularly how the two were able to find humans with whom they became best friends sometime after their arrival to earth. We saw this previously with Sonic and Tom Wachowski, AKA “Donut Lord.” Shadow seems to develop a similar connection with a young girl named Maria.

If I were a young kid watching this movie, I would probably have a great time with it. There is a lot of action, adventure, and humor. This would probably be a frequent watch in my house if I were 9 or 10 years old. As a 25 year old, I am trying to think about what this movie teaches our children. Sure, it is over the top and zany to no end. But I think it delivers positive lessons. Shadow’s presence in the movie makes me think lots of children will be introduced to the potential negatives of animal testing. On the hero’s side of the spectrum, the film also showcases the importance of teamwork and the complications of making the right choice.

Photo by [Paramount Pictures and Sega of A, Inc.]/Paramount Pictures and – © 2024 Par. Pics & SEGA

I talked about how I think “Sonic 3” is a step up from “Sonic 2,” and there is another improvement regarding this film I have not mentioned yet, the humans. For one thing, the humans’ involvement in “Sonic 3” raise far fewer questions as to the logistics of the plot. There are some moments of the movie in general that I thought were a bit far-fetched, but still. We also tend to focus more on Sonic and his crew this time around as opposed to the humans. Granted, Tom and Maddie do play a significant role in the film. Though their use throughout the runtime is much more pleasing compared to the last film. This film is also noticeably tighter than “Sonic the Hedgehog 2.” Though it should come as no surprise considering “Sonic 3” is 13 minutes shorter. But they seemed to have trimmed out the fluff so to speak. In terms of plot, characters, and overall details, the film is definitely more complicated than this franchise’s kickstarter. But by no means does the film feel terribly overstuffed or boring. There is never a dull moment in “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” There are slower moments, there are cheesy moments. However not once did I want to fall asleep watching this movie.

I said before that one of my complaints about this movie is that it is a little overly cartoony. And if you watch cartoons, you would know that the characters from one episode to the next behave very similarly to how they do in the last. That makes sense for consistency’s sake. You can even say the same thing in other television shows done in live-action, but it is especially noticeable in cartoons. I watched this movie and I noticed not only are Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles very similar to how they behave in the second movie, Knuckles in particular almost feels too similar. Sure, we learn that apparently he has picked up some pop culture knowledge. We see him make a “Pokemon” joke early on in the film. Even with that in mind, Knuckles still sounds like a fish out of water when it comes to concepts with which many earthlings would happen to understand. I do not know exactly how long this movie takes place after “Sonic 2,” but if Knuckles is still behaving the way he is, the timejump cannot be that far. At least for logic’s sake I hope that is the case.

Throughout the review we have talked about just how consistent this property has been. This has resulted in positives like Jim Carrey continuing to kill it as Robotnik and some action-packed third acts. But it has also resulted in negatives like a lack of character development or nonsensical scenes. There is one more consistency that if this franchise were to continue for some time, I hope gets addressed. By the end of this film, I left feeling the stakes in this franchise are minimal. I am not going to dive into detail, but the “Sonic the Hedgehog” franchise somewhat feels like the “Fast & Furious” franchise for a younger audience. Yes, both are action-packed films involving speed and globetrotting missions. But the further we get into the franchise, the more I am convinced that several characters are perhaps either invincible or lucky.

I understand that the “Sonic” franchise is a hit with younger viewers and the people behind it would therefore not want to make it too dark. But this franchise keeps adding new faces that it just makes you wonder when the heck it is going to suddenly get rid of one of them. “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a decent moneymaker for Paramount. As good as it may be now to have all the movies feel the same, it also risks running the franchise into the ground and having it feel bland. We have seen this problem with the Michael Bay-directed “Transformers” franchise, another popular product of Paramount. While the movies tend to have slight differences, they for the most part come off as carbon copies of one another. Despite my complaint, if Jeff Fowler and the same writing team were to come back for “Sonic the Hedgehog 4,” I would be onboard. They have a proven track record, even if it is not the greatest. Although I think it would be fun to see someone put their own creative spin into the franchise.

Also, one more consistency to bring up, this film has some extra material during the credits. There is a mid-credits scene and a post-credits scene. Stick around for both of them.

In the end, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is not a bad movie. In fact, by the standards of video game movies, it is one of the better ones. Despite that, the movie is still not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is a step up from the last “Sonic” outing, but still not good enough to rival the original. Also, as far as video game movies go, I think it is slightly more watchable than “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” This feels more like a movie compared to that film, which literally just comes off as an hour and a half of nonstop easter eggs and references just for the sake of forced nostalgia within a generic storyline. The voicework in this film, per usual, is top notch. The human characters are a noticeable improvement compared to the previous installment. Shadow is a nice addition to the franchise. But the jokes are off and on, the dialogue is a little too obnoxious, and I know this is a movie about a talking hedgehog, but even with that in mind, there are things in this film that feel a tad far-fetched. If you like the last two movies, this is definitely for you. If not, maybe go see something else. I am going to give “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” a 6/10.

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for my thoughts on films including “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” “Babygirl,” and “A Complete Unknown.” If you want to see 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 “Sonic the Hedgehog 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Y2K (2024): A Group of Teens Celebrate a Crappy New Year in This Rad Horror Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Y2K” is directed by Kyle Mooney and this is his directorial debut. The film stars Jaeden Martell (St. Vincent, It), Rachel Zegler (West Side Story, Shazam! Fury of the Gods), Julian Dennison (Deadpool 2, Godzilla vs. Kong), Lachlan Watson (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Chucky), Mason Gooding (Love, Victor, Scream), Fred Durst (The Education of Charlie Banks, The Fanatic), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film follows two teenagers who crash a New Years Eve party as the clock gets closer to 2000. When the clock hits midnight, the group of partiers must survive against an army of machines.

While it is not my top film I have been looking forward to all year, “Y2K” is a project that has been on my radar ever since the trailer dropped. The film looked like a crazy good time that answers a question that I have to imagine some people have asked over the past 24 years. What if Y2K actually happened?

This is not the first time Y2K has been played out through a form of entertainment. There is a great “Family Guy” episode that came out around the time said event was on the verge of potentially occurring. It is a funny watch, I highly recommend it. “Y2K,” interesting enough, sometimes plays out like a “Family Guy” episode. There is a lot of throwback humor. There are also a couple sights that might make certain audience members wince. The characters, while well thought out and decently portrayed, are somewhat stereotypical. You have Jaeden Martell playing Eli, a well meaning guy who does not really happen to be that popular. You have his quirky, hyperactive best friend, Danny, played by Julian Dennison. Rachel Zegler plays Laura, a character that fits somewhere within the “popular girl” stereotype. And because this is a movie and we need our hero to want something, we come to know that the unpopular kid, Eli, ends up with the desire to kiss the more popular Laura, particularly during the first moments of the year 2000. And adding a similarity to another Seth MacFarlane project, kind of like the 2012 movie “Ted,” there is a celebrity who appears in the film as themself and they play a bit of a bigger role in the film than a simple cameo.

There are three main elements of “Y2K” that make it worth the price admission for me. I ended up seeing this film at a free screening, so maybe that is not the best phrase to use. But if I were to pay to see this in a theater again, I have a few factors as to why. First off, going back to the actors, they all do a good job with the material given to them. Each character is full of energy to the point where they almost leap off the screen. I especially adored the connection between Jaeden Martell and Rachel Zegler. For the most part, they are believable. There is a bit of an out of the blue turn between them that almost comes off as forced, but I can forgive it somewhat because the two characters are likable and I was nevertheless engaged even in lesser moments between them. Of all the characters in the film, Jaeden Martell is the center of the story, so we get to see him crushing on Zegler for a good amount of the runtime. I thought the film did a great job at displaying that. It felt like something I would have experienced in say middle school or high school. Something so fantastical, yet it is real, but also seemingly hard to act upon. I have a feeling this connection would evoke a sense of nostalgia for some people watching this at a later age.

Speaking of which, this movie tends to handle its 90s nostalgia and timeframe fairly well. The movie delivers a decent soundtrack. There are a lot of good songs in the film that match their specific scenes. The movie starts off doing its best impression of “Searching,” where our point of view is presented through a screen on a computer. As that is going on, there is a moment where dial-up Internet can be heard in the background, and we are seeing a conversation play out in AOL. We also get some moments in a video store. The nostalgia in this film is definitely played up, but it appears to work within the context of the story.

The film is also a horror comedy, and while the film is not the scariest of all time, it contains some good kills, some of which are very funny. Seeing various pieces of technology in this film become completely unhinged is a definite highlight for me. “Y2K” is probably not going to be a movie for everyone, but if you are someone who likes creative attacks and kills, you might be entertained.

Despite containing a lot of positives, “Y2K” is not going to win any Oscars. The film works and is structurally sound, but there is not a ton in it that changes the game. I say this despite also feeling that “Y2K” has given me some of the biggest laughs I had at the cinema this year. I do recommend watching this movie with a crowd. I think it is a great one to see with friends. It would make for a fun night out. If anything, it is a solid first directorial outing from Kyle Mooney, a former “Saturday Night Live” cast member. This film shows he has potential as a filmmaker, and his best work has probably yet to come. But for a first time film, it seems to work. When you have first time directors in recent years firing on all cylinders like Ari Aster with “Hereditary” or Greta Gerwig with “Lady Bird,” it is easy to forget that not all first films have the potential to end up being that director’s best in the long run. When I see debuts like these two, I automatically get excited for the director’s next movie because I think their first film is not just good, but one of the best of the year in which it came out. Therefore, that introduces a problem of recency bias. They say when you do something so lackluster or outright terrible, the only way to go is up. Kyle Mooney’s “Y2K” is definitely far from terrible, but just like something terrible, Mooney has the potential to step things up in his sophomore effort, and I look forward to seeing if he can do that should he continue his directorial career.

In the end, “Y2K” is a mighty fine film. Some would even say it is the bomb. “Y2K” is a film that I would watch a second time if given the opportunity. It is really funny, violent, and contains a likable cast. I am glad to see Rachel Zegler continuing to get more roles. Her cinematic resume is small, but she is one of this generation’s youngest and brightest talents. I loved her in “West Side Story.” I am not really a “Hunger Games” guy so I do not know how she is in “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” but I still think she is a great performer. She can sing. She can act. She can do it all. Hopefully she has a strong career going forward. While Kyle Mooney’s debut as a director is not perfect, “Y2K” carries its own sense of style. I think Mooney could have a future directing more movies. As far as this first movie goes, I had a great time. I am going to give “Y2K” a 7/10.

“Y2K” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” “Smile 2,” and “Nightbitch.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Y2K?” What did you think about it? Or, if you lived during the transition from 1999 to 2000? What was that time like for you? For me, I was not even two months old so I could not tell you. But for those who do remember that time more vividly, leave your comments down below! Or, if you were born in 2000 or later, what is something associated with the 1990s you enjoy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Venom: The Last Dance (2024): 2024’s Comic Book Movie Suck Streak Continues…

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Venom: The Last Dance” is directed by Kelly Marcel and this is her directorial debut. This film stars Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Mad Max: Fury Road), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Juno Temple (Fargo, Ted Lasso), Rhys Ifans (The Amazing Spider-Man, The King’s Man), Stephen Graham (Gangs of New York, Snatch), Peggy Lu (Always be My Maybe, Kung Pow: Enter the Fist), Clark Backo (The Changeling, Letterkenny), Alanna Ubach (Meet the Fockers, Legally Blonde), and Andy Serkis (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther). This film is the third installment in the “Venom” franchise and centers around the titular host and his human bud Eddie Brock as the they are on the run for the sake of survival and for the latter to clear his name.

If you are new to Scene Before, you would know I love comic book movies. I think the sub-genre has consistently entertained me for years, and in some cases, given me some of my favorite movies of all time like “The Suicide Squad” or “Avengers: Infinity War.” Those two movies are from different cinematic universes, specifically the Detective Comics Extended Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while the “Venom” movies are also based on Marvel characters, they are not a part of the mainline MCU. Well, sort of. That is unless you count that one scene in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” But as far as the “Venom” movies go, they are under Sony’s Spider-Man Universe, which interestingly, barely has Spider-Man in it. This cinematic universe has been responsible for turds in the wind like “Morbius” and “Madame Web.” If I were to make a worst films of the 2020s list right now, I guarantee you both of those will end up in the top 5. But for some reason, the one successful property in this universe is “Venom,” which I find kind of sad. Not just because it is massively outperforming its partner films, leaving them in the dust. But because if you want me to be honest with you, I do not find these films to be that great. Sure, I liked the second “Venom” movie. I will admit “Let There be Carnage” has its moments. That film delivers some okay action, has a lot of laughs, and the pacing is tightly knit. But the first “Venom?” I could never watch that movie again. I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them.

As far as “Venom: The Last Dance” goes, I do not find the film to be the worst of the trilogy. But that does not mean the movie is good. The film starts off okay. One highlight in particular involves Venom and Eddie fighting a bunch of dudes in a warehouse. That part was entertaining and I really enjoyed some of the gore delivered in that sequence. I thought another highlight was seeing Venom and Eddie hang on the side of a plane thousands of feet in the air. But there is not really anything else worth writing home about. For the most part, the movie is slow. Considering the tight pace of the previous installment, slow is probably the last word I would want to use when describing “Venom: The Last Dance,” but here we are. As for the villain in this film, I honestly almost did not care at all. So I guess you could say that the Sony Spider-Man Universe seems to be taking some inspiration from the much more successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, but maybe not in the way one would want them to.

Even though I think this whole trilogy has been a loss, I think the one win throughout all three films, if you can call it, is the bond between Eddie and Venom. We see Tom Hardy doing an okay job as both characters. And Venom in particular has always been funny. As much as I hated the first movie in this trilogy, I still laugh thinking about the one scene where Venom calls Eddie a “p****” for not jumping from a building and instead taking an elevator to leave. The two continue to have decent chemistry in this third installment. Unfortunately I do not think they are as funny as they were before. But I think when it comes to the duo’s aspirations in this film, that part was nice to see. We find out that Venom wants to go see the Statue of Liberty, and seeing that motivation play out was kind of wholesome. Granted, we find out at the beginning of the film that is not the only reason these two are going to New York, but it is nice to know that this alien character has these humanistic desires. You can tell that these two have grown to care about each other. I just wish the screenplay was more compelling. It lacks an oomph. It lacks a direction. It lacks a substance that makes the film exciting.

Remember Mrs. Chen from the previous movies? Well guess what? She is back! I will admit, when I saw the trailers for this film and I watched her character in context of what was given to me through said trailers, I was curious about what she would do in this film. Honestly though, she does not add much to the plot, the progression of the story, anything. She is literally just there for the sake of being there. Although this time instead of seeing her behind the counter of a convenience store, she makes a trip out to Las Vegas to party it up. She has a penthouse suite, she’s dressed like a queen, the whole nine yards. While I admittedly found Peggy Lu to give a somewhat memorable performance in the film, you could almost take her out and have the outcome of the film barely change at all. Her appearance in this film barely serves the story, and ultimately comes off as a distraction if anything. What happens in Vegas should certainly stay out of “Venom: The Last Dance.”

In my review for “Venom: Let There be Carnage,” I mentioned I had one notable moment that could be described as a guilty pleasure from that movie. Particularly the moment where Eddie and Venom are arguing and the whole thing results in this hilarious fiasco where Venom throws out Eddie’s TV. This leads to another scene some time later where we see a brand new Sony television that was clearly intended to be there for product placement purposes. After all, these movies are from Sony, so they have to show off their products somehow. This trend appears to continue in “Venom: The Last Dance,” but the product placement is likely not as obvious as the last time. For those who do not know, Sony owns “Wheel of Fortune.” When Eddie gets to a casino in Las Vegas, he walks to a Wheel of Fortune slot machine, a common staple at these places, and sits down. The scene at said slot machine is rather short, but sweet. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It is a somewhat accurate representation of the thrill, and agony of gambling. You see Eddie mashing the button like he’s learning how to play “Mortal Kombat,” Venom is getting a sudden sensation he has never experienced before, he goes on saying this is the greatest feeling he’s ever had. But it does not take long for them to hit a low, particularly running out of money. Venom prompts Eddie to smash the machine in rage. The scene delivers some laughs, and as someone who has enjoyed his time at the slot machine, and occasionally questioned myself for sitting down at one in the first place, this is a good representation of what it is like to gamble sometimes.

By the way, if the hooligans at Foxwoods Resort in Connecticut are reading this, give me my freaking money back that you guys snatched from me in September, NOW.

That said, one minor detail, they likely customized the “Wheel of Fortune” slot machine for this movie, because I cannot recall one time I have played those machines, or any others for that matter, and saw an enormous “YOU LOSE” graphic on those machines. I know gambling can be cruel, but they’re not exactly arcade games. The game is never over on slot machines, it just stops at a point until someone keeps it going.

Speaking of minor details, one of my biggest laughs in the movie is the likely the result of me spending way too much time looking into details on passenger airplanes. Yes, like some other people, I have had growing worries about flying certain Boeing aircrafts. But even before planes like the 737 MAX became a hot topic of concern, I knew about some models thanks to YouTube. There is a moment in “Venom: The Last Dance” where Eddie explains to Venom that the two latched off the exterior of a Boeing 757. It takes a bit for Venom to chime in about this, but at one point he shouts, “It was an Airbus A320!” I am by no means an air geek or planespotter, but I do have an appreciation for air travel. I think the whole process behind it and the way it is managed is sometimes a scam, but either way, that particular line made me lose it when Venom said it. Plus the fact that Venom shouted it with such certainty made the execution of the line come off as admirable as possible.

But the more I think about this “Venom” trilogy, the more I think these movies are the kinds that Martin Scorsese would look at and go, “Hard pass.” And you know what? Now that I have sat through all three of these monstrosities, I would be right there with him. To use Scorsese’s words, and I may sound like a hypocrite because this goes against what I said about the pacing earlier, “Venom: The Last Dance” undoubtedly has the pace of a theme park ride. You may be wondering if I am high right now. Just moments ago I said this movie was slow. What kind of theme park ride are we talking about? Well, if we were to talk about faster theme park rides like a roller coaster, such a pace is most evident when we are with Eddie and Venom. Whenever their presence is absent, “Venom: The Last Dance” becomes a complete and total snoozefest. The main duo’s connection kind of saves the movie in the same way it has done so in the franchise’s predecessors. Everything involving Area 51 was boring. Some of the characters in those scenes were not as compelling as maybe they could have been. They felt flat. They felt wooden. If anything, these movies somewhat remind me of the reality TV genre. This is not a comparison to every show within the genre, but if you watch certain reality shows you will notice how hyped up the main cast tends to get sometimes. When I think of this Venom trilogy, I think of the titular character’s voice. I think about how loud that voice can get in select scenes to the point where it drowns out all the other characters. Granted, sometimes it is appealing, but it does not change the fact that this movie feels like noise for the sake of noise.

Also, with this being the third installment of a trilogy, the film tries to go out on a note of finality. Or as Hollywood puts it, “The end… Until we make a billion dollars.” Unfortunately, the note of finality this movie tends to provide feels tacked on. Never once did I get any emotion between these two characters. Part of it is because this property is far from the gold standard of comic book movies, therefore I never had any attachment to these films to begin with. While I thought the second film is good, I think the first one is ridiculous garbage, and at the time, the worst “Spider-Man”-related film I had seen. Then came “Morbius,” then came “Madame Web…” Oh my god. This goddamn timeline. Sony, get your act together! Because I have had it! Either get people who care about these characters, or give the rights to somebody else! I could tell Tom Hardy is probably having a blast making these movies, but I cannot say I am having the best time watching them. They are barely good enough to be eye candy. And it is not even good eye candy. It is like eye candy that is a bit past its expiration date! It can still be edible, but is it really? It is honestly not that good. When I look at Venom in this movie and the many symbiotic creatures we end up seeing, it reminds me of the “Star Wars” prequels in a sense because if you remember those movies in comparison to the original trilogy, you would notice a significantly higher presence of lightsabers, and therefore lightsaber fights. When you look at the original trilogy, lightsabers felt special and were always used to serve the story. In the prequels, the lightsaber use sometimes comes off as an excuse to put said objects on the screen like they are jangling keys. Do not get me wrong, sometimes I was hypnotized by those jangling keys, but still.

My point is, when I look at all the symbiotic creatures, it makes the character of Venom feel less like a one of a kind, and perhaps as commonplace as a Dunkin’ location in New England. Venom does not feel special in this movie. Granted, in the previous films, he faced off against other symbiotic beings, but the count of symbiotic beings in those movies were minimal. There was still a novelty to the concept. You could almost argue that there are some story purposes to the number of creatures in this film, considering this film is set in Area 51. This “Venom” film is definitely going bigger than the previous two installments. Though in contrary to the common saying, bigger does not mean better. In this case, the movie is so big that it leaves me wondering how many of these creatures are in the movie for the sole purpose of selling toys. In fact, there are a couple times in this movie where I was looking at numerous characters or shifts the symbiote itself makes and in my head I’m going, “There’s a toy.” “There’s another toy.” “There’s a toy.” “There’s a Hot Toy.” “There’s an action figure.” “There’s a Funko Pop.” When the trailers showed off the Venomized horse, I was intrigued by how delightfully weird such a concept could be. And when that was shown in the movie, I thought it was fun to watch on screen. But for the most part, I kept looking at the symbiotic creatures and thought the whole idea was overdone by the climax of the film. Now I may sound like a hypocrite, because looking back at say the MCU’s “Iron Man 3,” I was thrilled when the climax went down and all the Iron Man suits showed up. But that was on top of an already engaging film containing characters I cared about and a story that moved along at a decent pace. The finale for “Iron Man 3” was the cherry on top of a sundae whereas the finale for “Venom: The Last Dance” felt like a bunch of creatures I did not care about facing off a threat I did not care about.

Could I watch “Venom: The Last Dance” if I were drunk? That is a question I personally find to be a bit tough to answer, mainly because I do not drink. Maybe this is why I hate these movies. Because I refuse the booze. But in all seriousness, as I look at “Venom: The Last Dance,” this is a movie that would probably be best watched in a setting that includes alcohol. Heck, part of the movie takes place in Vegas! Now you get to watch a movie about a guy and his alien pal going to a place where poor decisions are highly encouraged while also making some poor decisions right from your own couch. Although if you ask me, watching “Venom: The Last Dance” is already enough of poor decision.

In the end, “Venom: The Last Dance” is one of the worst films of the year. The film starts off average and just gets worse as it goes. This is just the latest comic book movie to come out in 2024 that I found to be a waste of time. If it were not for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” every comic book movie that came out this year would have been a dud. Now, it is hard to top the injustice that is “Madame Web,” and thankfully, “Venom: The Last Dance” is an improvement from that schlock. Is “Venom: The Last Dance” as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux?” Surprisingly, no. These are words I did not think I would be saying months ago! For one thing, despite there being more cons than pros in “Venom: The Last Dance,” it does have some entertainment value. There are some funny lines here and there. There are one or two decent action sequences. But it is not enough to make a good movie. The palette of the film is somewhat depressing. The moments that try to trigger your emotions did not get to me. I did not care for a lot of the supporting characters. And to my surprise, the film sometimes moves at a snail’s pace.

I genuinely hope, against all odds, that come December, “Kraven the Hunter” is a good movie. Because I have no faith in it at this point. And why should I have any faith in it? Literally the only film in this Sony Spider-Man Universe that has worked for me so far is “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” The first “Venom” was terrible. “Morbius” sucked. “Madame Web” is one of the worst films I have ever seen. For those of you who have comic book movie fatigue, I cannot relate. We clearly live in different worlds. Again, unpopular opinion I guess, I liked every MCU film since “Endgame.” If the MCU did not exist, and Sony’s stinkers were all that were coming out, there is a chance I could be asking for more quality products, or maybe I would be fatigued. This is supposedly the end of Eddie and Venom’s journey together, but there are future plans for the ongoing Sony Spider-Man Universe. As much as I am peeved at Sony for the state of said universe, I do not envy their position right now. Their most successful property is concluding, and now they supposedly have the comic book movie equivalent of the Island of Misfit Toys to play with. Honestly, if “Kraven the Hunter” is a complete bust, I would not be shocked if Tom Holland never stops playing “Spider-Man.” You think Disney is going to make Hugh Jackman play Wolverine until he’s 90? Ha! Fat chance! Watch what Sony is going to make Tom Holland do with “Spider-Man” if their other projects continue to fail.

I mean… At least there is “Spider-Verse.” That seems to be kicking butt right now.

“Venom: The Last Dance” is the first film directed by Kelly Marcel, and should she continue to direct movies, I hope they are more successful than this. I wish her nothing but the best. But unfortunately, when it comes to comic book movies, “Venom: The Last Dance” is far from the best. I am going to give “Venom: The Last Dance” a 4/10.

“Venom: The Last Dance” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” Also coming soon, the next installment in my Election Days review series, I will be reviewing “On the Basis of Sex,” which is about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 “Venom: The Last Dance?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Venom” movie? For me, the answer is easily “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” But what about you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Megalopolis (2024): Mediocritis

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Megalopolis” is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (Dracula, The Godfather) and stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), Nathalie Emmanuel (Furious 7, Game of Thrones), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, Dirty Grandpa), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Eagle Eye), Jon Voight (Reagan, Midnight Cowboy), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, John Wick: Chapter 2), Kathryn Hunter (Poor Things, Andor), and Dustin Hoffman (Lenny, Kramer vs. Kramer). This film is set in the city of New Rome, which is basically an alternate version of New York City. The story is about architect Cesar Catilina as he aspires to rebuild his city into a utopia, much to the opposition of New Rome’s mayor, Franklyn Cicero (Esposito).

Francis Ford Coppola’s resume is one to behold. If you go on the IMDb top 250, you will notice that several of his titles make the list. Heck, as of this writing, “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II” literally take up the #2 and #4 spots. “Apocalypse Now” is also at #56. Coppola has no doubt cemented his legacy in Hollywood as one of the icons. Heck, even though it is not talked about as much, I have to say that I really liked “The Outsiders.” It’s a solid movie inspired by a pretty good book. Kind of like Clint Eastwood, it is somewhat mind-blowing to know that Coppola is still making films at his age. “Megalopolis” has become something of a passion project for Coppola. He has been developing it off and on for many years. He’s talked with several actors for an opportunity to appear in the film. He’s even sold part of his winery so he could self-finance the film. But was this movie worth all that time and effort? As much as I champion Francis Ford Coppola for bringing the movie he wants to cinemas, I simply wish I liked it more. “Megalopolis” is not my least favorite movie of the year, but it is certainly one of the most boring.

I will be honest, I almost did not go see this movie, because I heard about the bad reviews this movie was getting some time before checking it out. And I had already dealt with the abomination against humanity that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” I did not know if I had it in me to sit down and dedicate time to this controversial flick. Unfortunately I hate myself enough to do just that. After two hours that honestly almost felt like two and a half, maybe three, I can say that this film is one of the most unmemorable I have seen all year. That honestly says something. I am sure a lot of people put effort into the films they are crafting. But in the case of “Megalopolis,” I already knew this was a labor of love from the start. Having seen this film come to life, I almost cannot see anyone else doing this film in the style that Coppola did. That said, I cannot say I found the style entirely appealing.

Now, this film is a feast for the naked eye. The lighting in this film offers a variety of color. This one shot of Adam Driver’s face that continues to be ingrained in my memory. From a production value standpoint, this film gets top marks. “Megalopolis” is kind of like, well, here comes another mention of that stinker… “Joker: Folie à Deux.” There is no doubt that the look of the film is worthy of praise. It goes without any debate that it is nicely shot, contains good costumes, and has marvelous set design. There are times where I feel the film gets a little too far-fetched in terms of how fantastical the look comes off. But there are others where I can buy what the film is selling and I like what I see.

The film is set in New Rome, which as I mentioned earlier is basically New York City with some minor changes. The structure is the same, it contains tons of tall buildings, there’s the Statue of Liberty. The Madison Square Garden even exists in this film, and I kind of like what this film has done with the place. In Ancient Rome, people flocked to the Colosseum for events like gladiator fights. And in a sense, MSG is basically a modernized version of the Colosseum. This movie tends to present a stadium with the old school glory of the Colosseum with the modern day wonder of the Madison Square Garden people still flock to today. A good portion of the movie is spent there, and while there are some clips set within the arena which contain select editing choices I honestly found to be mind-numbing, I think the film nails the atmosphere of that venue to make it as Colosseum-like as possible while still factoring in what makes it what it is today. There is very much a blend of old meets new throughout the execution of such an iconic venue.

“Megalopolis” as a film somewhat reminds me of “The Boy and the Heron,” made by another visionary director, Hayao Miyazaki. For the record, I think that film is significantly better than this one. But I say this because I thought the best part of that film is its world-building. That said, the story and characters appear to play second fiddle in comparison. While “Megalopolis” contains a decent cast, most of the characters are missing a spark of some kind. In fact, I would almost argue none of the performances are really that great. There are definitely some that are okay. But some are over the top while others are forgettable. Adam Driver seems to try his best, but it is no “Marriage Story.” If you want a better outing from Aubrey Plaza, go see “My Old Ass.” As great as Laurence Fishburne’s voice is, seeing him in this movie makes me think I would rather be watching “The Matrix” right now. If anything, even though New Rome is a city and not a person, I would almost argue it is a character of its own and is more interesting than any of the people in this film. Then again, that is not saying much.

Although if I had to name one character I surprisingly enjoyed on screen it would be Vesta Sweetwater (top), played by Grace VanderWaal, and if you somehow remember that name from almost a decade ago, then you probably watched season 11 of “America’s Got Talent.” VanderWaal plays a pop star who the film establishes to maintain her purity and remain a virgin until marriage. It is a whole thing. But I thought VanderWaal carried an incredible screen presence whenever she played this character. When she came on screen, she commanded my attention. While her screen time was brief, it made for one of the film’s few highlights, and that says a lot considering I wanted The Clairvoyants to win “AGT” the year she was on by a clear mile. Just one moron’s opinion. That said, VanderWaal is great here. She plays her part well.

In the end, “Megalopolis” is one of those movies that the more I look at it, the more I am transfixed with the images on screen, but not so much the substance within them. When I walked out of “Megalopolis” I started to forget about the film’s context, story, and characters, but there is one thought that stuck in my mind. This could be a decent tech demo. It is colorful, bright, and offers a lot of detail frame by frame. I could clearly tell that Francis Ford Coppola put his heart and soul into this project, but sadly it is kind of a mess. It also comes off as rather pretentious and overly cartoony, which is not the finest combination. Is it the worst film of the year? No. In fact, threepeat alert! It is not as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux!” So… Yay? I am going to give “Megalopolis” a 4/10.

“Megalopolis” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance,” “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” and “Gladiator II.” If you want to see my reviews for these films and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Megalopolis?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Francis Ford Coppola film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Wild Robot (2024): DreamWorks’ Incredible Story On the Beauty and Struggles of Parenting

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Wild Robot” is directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Kit Connor (His Dark Materials, Heartstopper), Bill Nighy (Emma., The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice), Matt Berry (The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, What We Do in the Shadows) and Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible). This film is about a robot who goes by its product name, ROZZUM Unit 7134, or “Roz” for short. The story dives into Roz’s adventures in the wild, including an unexpected encounter with a baby goose, which leads to her becoming said goose’s parent. Now she must do all she can to master something that goes beyond her programming.

“The Wild Robot” is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It is easily my most anticipated animated film of the year. I have been super excited for this film ever since I saw the teaser trailer before watching “Kung Fu Panda 4” in the theater. The footage contained tons of beautiful shots, an interesting color scheme, and even though it did not give a lot the story away, I had a strong feeling this movie was going to be deep. It was going to make the audience think. I had a feeling that “The Wild Robot” would be the 2020s version of “Wall-E,” both in terms of material and quality. Before I get into my thoughts about the movie, I can say the movie has some similarities to “Wall-E,” it has the same DNA, but it is a much different animal.

“The Wild Robot” is what you get when you strip certain parts of “Wall-E” and insert them into a movie whose story is primarily about parenting. Whereas “Wall-E” is about a robot finding love with another robot and saving a plant, this film is about a robot finding out who she is while also dealing with what some would argue is one of the hardest tasks you can ever be given.

While this movie’s protagonist is dealing with a hard task, it is easy for me to say that “The Wild Robot” is one of the best movies of the year. As far as animated movies go, it is hard to say it gets better than this. As much as I am happy for “Inside Out 2” becoming the biggest animated film of all time, “The Wild Robot” clicked with me more. That said, you cannot go wrong with watching either film. But if I had to pick one, “The Wild Robot” would be my choice.

“The Wild Robot” is perhaps an answer for the parents who are forced to take their children to the theater to watch these kinds of movies. Of course, animated movies often appeal to children, but it should not be forgotten that the parents are probably the ones paying for their tickets. I want to know how parents will view this movie by the time it is over. Because I believe this is a story that will appeal to a lot of them.

I see movies as escapes from reality, so if I were to pitch a movie like this to a parent and tell them that this story is perhaps an encapsulation of something you are already dealing with, there could be a better way to sell it. I do not know. But some of the best movies are those that relate to the audience, that speak to them. They are movies that people can identify with containing characters whose personalities and experiences are similar to their own. I think a lot of parents will find something to relate to when they see the character of Roz and everything she goes through. Now you may be wondering, will kids enjoy this movie? Of course they will! It is funny, it is action-packed at times, and it contains characters that easily appeal to that demographic. The main character is a robot and by her side are a variety of wild animals. Kids love those! For all I know, for some younger viewers, this is going to be one of those movies, kind of like “The Incredibles” was for me, that I enjoyed watching as a kid because of its adventure and action elements, but rewatched as an adult with a greater appreciation for how it handles its characters’ struggles of getting older. I honestly would want to know if parents will have more fun with this movie than their own children. But I can say I saw this movie in a theater full of children on a Sunday morning. They seemed to be positively interacting with it for much of the runtime, so it definitely has their appeal.

I would also like to talk about the voicework of “The Wild Robot.” I have seen the trailers for this film, so I did see the typical casting list where they flash a ton of celebrity names. This movie continues the cliche where we use celebrity voice artists as opposed to certain people who primarily do voicework. Although to be fair some of the cast has some notable voiceover experience, like Mark Hamill. With that in mind, not only does everyone do a good job here, I could not tell that they were voicing their own characters. I almost forgot these actors were in the movie. Sure, I knew Lupita Nyong’o was the lead. But as I heard her voice, it sounded more hyperactive than what I used to hearing from her. I am not sure if she piped herself up or if there is a filter being applied to her recordings in post. But it works. I have seen Pedro Pascal in a number of projects, and I not tell he was Fink the fox. Ving Rhames was also in this movie, and I guarantee many of you reading this recognize his voice. From “Mission: Impossible” on the big screen to the current Arby’s commercials on the small screen, Rhames always has a commanding presence. And his character, Thunderbolt the falcon, is also a great example of such a presence. He sounds bold and god-like with every line. But even then, I could not tell that was Ving Rhames. This is not a dig, if anything it is the highest of compliments.

Even though this movie’s cast is recognizable, most, if not all of these cast members put on a disguisable performance. The movie does a much better job at masking the actors doing these voices than say “DC League of Super Pets,” whose leads’ voices I could recognize and become distracted by in a heartbeat. When the credits rolled, I whispered to myself, “Wait, Mark Hamill was in this?!” Looking back, I believe I knew that in advance. But for one thing, I did not see the trailer in awhile. And again, it goes to show how good these voice performances are. These are characters, not celebrities playing themselves.

Going back to what I said about this film being like “Wall-E,” “The Wild Robot” never specifies when exactly it is set. But I was able to pick up that like “Wall-E,” this movie was set in the future. Both films tend to highlight the mistakes we have made as humans. Whether it is not solving climate change or trying so hard to find a new home to the point where we may have forgotten to preserve the one we have. Also, the central protagonists of these movies are robots, which you could argue we are over-relying on for our many conveniences as we speak. Both “The Wild Robot” and “Wall-E” feature several robots created by large corporations. Both robots who we know as these films’ protagonists serve their respective purposes, but they are also tasked with making people’s lives easier. In the case of “The Wild Robot,” we see that Roz’s attention extends to other animals. Although to be fair, “Wall-E” mostly had human characters. I remember there being a cockroach in the movie, but that may be it.

This film also reminded me of “The Iron Giant.” By that I mean the movie is in a sense an edition of that movie where the roles are reversed. Kind of… If you have ever seen “The Iron Giant,” you would know the robot is the fish out of water character, and the main protagonist, Hogarth, helps him adapt to being on earth. In this film, we see Roz go from adapting to her environment on earth, to teaching a gosling everything she knows. There are plenty of animated movies out there featuring robots. Heck, my last review was for “Transformers One,” and that movie has plenty of them. But I am proud to say that “The Wild Robot” is just as masterful as “Wall-E” and “The Iron Giant,” two movies featuring robots that deserve every ounce of praise that they can possibly get. If you want me to be real though, of these three movies, I think “The Wild Robot” is the weakest of the bunch.

This leads me into my problems with the movie. For one thing, the animation style, while definitely creative, sometimes feels unfinished, perhaps on purpose. Sometimes it works, other times it feels cheap. There are several environments that caught my eye. The design of the robot is well done. I loved seeing how this movie represents foliage in certain scenes, which makes it a proper release for this time of year. But there are also certain places or effects that come off as less textured than others. Part of me also questions the way this movie addresses communication between Roz and the animals. We see Roz spending time translating the animals’ language, so we learn after some time that Roz can understand the animals. But we are seeing Roz communicate and have full-fledged conversations with these animals in English. I get that a lot of movies tend to personify animals and have them speak English. But I am surprised on how well both the robot and these animals understood each other. Perhaps all the conversations were in English for us, the audience. It is a minor complaint, if that. Maybe with a rewatch that complaint will go away. Besides, the movie has good dialogue. It has a lot of funny lines from several characters, even those who barely appear in the film at all.

The script itself is an impressive look at what it is like to be a parent. I say this as if I have kids. I do not. But from what I have heard and seen about parenting, this movie presents parenting as a concept that no one really understands until they try it, until they do it. There is a moment where Roz finds out she is the first point of contact of a newborn gosling. Pinktail, a possum played by Catherine O’Hara, explains to Roz that she is now said gosling’s mother. Roz responds by saying she does not have the programming, to which Pinktail tells her “No one does.” I was a first-born child. I can only imagine what my parents were thinking when they first had me. I am sure they were happy, but also in a neverending state of asking questions. I probably presented them with situations that they did not see coming. Even if I was a second-born child, chances are I could have done the same thing. But I recognize that raising me was a learning curve. I can only imagine how hard it is for Roz, who is not only of a different kind than the gosling, who we eventually know to go by the name Brightbill, but is programmed specifically for helping humans. Did she ask for something like this to happen? No she did not. But she handles it as best she can because while parenting is not in her programming, as a robot she is designed to complete tasks, and to her, this is just the latest one she has been given.

It is also rather refreshing to see an animated movie about a parental figure like this. When I look back at DreamWorks’ animated slate for example, the movies are normally about younger or childless characters. Sure, Shrek and Fiona have children, but they progress to that point after multiple movies. Yes, you can say Hiccup from “How to Train Your Dragon” is parent-like, but his relationship sometimes presents itself somewhat similarly to that of an owner and their pet as opposed to a parent and child. That, and the first film spends time showing complications between Hiccup and his own father. Although in “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World,” the movie ends on a note that is perhaps reminiscent of what it must feel like for a child to leave the nest after so many years. Age is not the biggest topic or concern in “The Wild Robot,” but whereas we have seen several movies of this nature where there is a mentor figure hanging somewhere in the background, maybe as a prominent supporting character, Roz, our main hero sort of becomes a mentor figure herself. Yes, she is a fish out of water, and you could also argue that Fink the fox and other characters are helping Roz in her journey. But it is nevertheless refreshing to see a movie of this kind where we focus on Roz’s concern on whether her goose will be able to fly, as opposed to one where the goose must learn how to fly no matter the cost.

And it is not like the movie refuses to give depth to Brightbill the goose. The movie decently highlights his journey and his individualities. This movie represents a journey that many parents can relate to, but also does a great job at showing Brightbill’s struggles of fitting in. He is kind of an outcast. Not only did I see his struggles that came with being different, but in the case of a character like Roz, I could only imagine her struggle realizing how others treat her child times. But this is ultimately not Brightbill’s movie, it is Roz’s movie. And I can guarantee, Roz’s movie is a fantastic one.

In the end, “The Wild Robot” is one of the year’s finest films. The animation is sometimes iffy, and the climax feels oddly bigger than I would have expected out of a film like this, but it does not change the fact that this is one of DreamWorks’ most unique movies. Is it my favorite DreamWorks animation? Probably not. Given time to marinate over the past week I thought of a few movies I enjoyed more. The first two “Kung Fu Panda” movies come to mind. “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” has gotten a few watches out of yours truly since its release nearly two years ago. “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” is one of those films that came out at a perfect time for me and I find it to be a marvelous story. But if I had to round out my top 5 DreamWorks Animations, “The Wild Robot” would probably be up there at this point. And it deserves to be. It is a deep story showcasing both the beauty and the struggles of parenting. It is about a robot who learns to become more than what it was designed to be. It is a movie that kids will probably enjoy when they are younger, but will probably see in a different way as they age. If there is one movie in theaters you should see right now, this might be it. I am going to give “The Wild Robot” a 9/10.

“The Wild Robot” 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 sequel, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” which I will give some credit, the movie is prompting conversations. As far as whether my addition to the conversation is positive or negative, you will find out about that soon enough. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Wild Robot?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your favorite DreamWorks Animations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Transformers One (2024): One of the Most Human Transformers Stories Yet, Despite There Being No Humans in the Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Transformers One” is directed by Josh Cooley (Toy Story 4, Inside Out) and stars Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Brian Tyree Henry (Eternals, Godzilla vs. Kong), Scarlett Johansson (Iron Man 2, Don Jon) Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs, Miracle Workers), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Man of Steel), and Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Baby Driver). This film is about the origins of robots Orion Pax and D-16, who eventually become Optimus Prime and Megatron. As a team, these two and several others are given the powers and capabilities to change their planet, Cybertron, forever.

I was born at the tail end of the 1990s, so I was alive at a time when Transformers was continuously shrinking in relevancy. Then a big bang happened in 2007 when the franchise’s first Michael Bay-directed film came out. That is when I first heard about the property, that is when I also started watching it. I had little to no experience with any of the toys beforehand. And no, I have not gone back to watch any of the “Transformers” material from the 20th century. I am somewhat familiar with it. I am aware of “Transformers: The Movie” killing off all the Autobots and that scarring several viewers. But I have not seen the movie myself. But even with my lack of experience of older “Transformers” material, I can confirm that my biggest problem with a number of the live-action “Transformers” films of this era is that they do not feel as character-based as they could be. Not to mention, despite having “Transformers” in the name, the movies are more about the humans than anyone else. Admittedly, I like the first Michael Bay “Transformers” film. I had some fun with “Dark of the Moon.” “Bumblebee” was fantastic. And while it is not the most memorable of the bunch, “Rise of the Beasts” definitely has its moments.

That said, “Transformers One” removes the humans and makes the movie about its titular robots, which is refreshing. The movie is entirely set on Cybertron and features zero scenes on earth. Despite these differences, this movie arguably has the most human story I have witnessed from the “Transformers” franchise yet. It is very much an underdog story about rising up, questioning authority, and embracing the power of friendship.

The main friendship we see is that of Orion Pax (lower right) and D-16 (upper right), played by Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry. I bought every moment of their connection. The two come off as genuine friends. They have some admirable moments where they bond, they stand up for each other, exchange items. The two are best buds. Both of their respective actors do a great job in this film, which relieves me. After all, this is yet another animated project featuring a cast of mostly celebrity voice actors whose names and faces are known in popular live-action projects. These people may as well have been used as a selling point to adults who would be weary about taking their kids to a film like this. Granted, some of these actors have voiceover experience. Scarlett Johansson was in “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie” as well as “Sing 2.” Keegan-Michael Key has several voiceover credits including “Toy Story 4,” the 2019 “Lion King,” “Migration,” and “IF.” He’s doing well for himself in the voiceover department. Everyone does a good job here and the story serves them well.

This movie is perfectly paced. Every action scene had my attention. The character moments are admirable. The humor stuck the landing. It is not the funniest movie I have seen in years, but it had quite a few laughs. The best part about the movie, it follows a paramount rule of show business, which is to leave the audience wanting more. By the end of this film, I was happy with what I got, but there was a point where I wanted to see where these characters would take their adventures next. I remember when I saw “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” which finished on a note where certain ends were not tied together, and I did not really care as much as I could have. This film has a balance in its journey and conclusion where I was satisfied by what was in front of me, but it also left me eagerly hoping to find out what is next.

The film also has a nice polish to its animation. In this age, having bad animation in a major motion picture is kind of a surprise nowadays. But this film, like some others I have been seeing recently, has an individualistic look to it. I cannot say its style offers the diversity of the “Spider-Verse” franchise. But “Transformers One” is stylized just enough to have an identity of its own. The way the movie plays around with some of its shots are fast-paced and immersive. Cybertron itself is sometimes a sight to to behold. This movie is based on toys, so of course the color palette is eye-popping.

Despite my recent positives, I have problems with the movie. For one thing, the storyline is a bit predictable. Sure, as someone who knows about “Transformers,” and the way certain characters are, I know how some characters will wind up by the end of the film. That is not my biggest problem. But there is one other character in the film who as soon as I saw him in the beginning and the way he was written, it was not that hard for me to speculate where exactly this character would be taken. Again, this is a character who has been used in the franchise previously, including one of the Michael Bay movies, all of which I have seen. But I am willing to bet if this was my first “Transformers” anything, I would have nevertheless found this character’s path to be utterly predictable. Maybe unless I was a young child because I have not seen enough movies.

Speaking of young children, I do think that “Transformers One” is a fine family film. Although I would not necessarily say this movie is entirely kid-friendly. At least for all ages that is. There are a couple instances of violence, granted, it is cartoon violence, that kind of push the line as for what you can see in a modern PG movie. Heck, even some of the language pushes the line. There are no f-bombs or s-words here, but Bumblebee repeatedly refers to himself as “Badassatron.” If I had kids I would not prevent them from watching this movie. Heck, part of me would want to put this on for them before “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which is rated PG and came out just before PG-13 was ever slapped onto a film. If my future children watch “Transformers One” say when they are 7 or 8, I have no problem with it. Ask me again if I become a father, but still… “Transformers One” is a good movie with solid action, a good story, and despite some moments that go a bit far, the movie manages to have positive lessons for its viewers to take with them. I would question taking a certain type of four year old for example to see “Transformers One” in the theater, but if they are a little older, things should be fine. Parents, if you are reading this, I say this as someone who is not a parent, so maybe I am just a moron, but use your own judgment. Despite being one of this year’s most attractive and colorful films, “Transformers One” might not be as well-rounded for all ages as say “Inside Out 2.”

In the end, “Transformers One” is an incredible time. Some people might be rejoicing right now and saying that this may be the first great “Transformers” movie in ages, or maybe even ever. For the record, I disagree. I think Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” is good. His third movie is good. Travis Knight’s “Bumblebee” might be my favorite of the live-action ones they have done. “Transformers One” is honestly up there with “Bumblebee” for me. If it were not for being one of this year’s more predictable narratives at times, that would probably be the one significant thing that could make a movie like this better. But “Transformers One” handles its material with excellence. It is great for both adults and kids. It might not be suitable for all kids, but I am sure many kids will enjoy this just fine. I am going to give “Transformers One” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another animated movie to talk about soon, and that is “The Wild Robot!” That review will be available soon. Also coming up, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Joker: Folie a Deux…” The most divisive movie in ages. My goodness… That review is going to be fun. …Probably. 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 “Transformers One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie about friendship that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene before is your click to the flicks!

Borderlands (2024): Boring Blands

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

Hint, on that last part, it sucks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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