“Ghostbsuters: Frozen Empire” is directed by Gil Kenan (Monster House, Poltergeist) and this film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ant-Man), Carrie Coon (The Leftovers, Fargo), Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things, It), Mckenna Grace (The Young and the Restless, Gifted), Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley, The Big Sick), Patton Oswalt (King of Queens, A.P. Bio), Ernie Hudson (The Basketball Diaries, Quantum Leap), and Annie Potts (Toy Story, Young Sheldon). This movie traces back to the franchise’s origin point, New York City, and centers around the Ghostbusters’ quest to uncover the connections to an ancient artifact and to keep civilization from being trapped under ice.
Here is a fun fact about Scene Before, “Ghostbusters” literally got this blog started. I am serious. Because I started this blog in 2016 as part of a high school project. One of the big talking points at the time was the trailer for the “Ghostbusters” reboot, which I did not enjoy. Then months later, one of the big talking points was the movie connected to that trailer, which I did not enjoy. Like, really did not enjoy. In fact, when I did my worst films of the 2010s list, that was #1, and I stand by it. Could that movie have worked? Of course it could have! After seeing “The LEGO Movie,” I am under the impression any movie can work. But 2016’s “Ghostbusters” was not funny. The CGI was off-putting. And it is a waste of a lot of people’s talent. When I look back at the film, part of me hates talking about it. Because if I simply say I did not like the movie, there is probably someone out there pointing their finger at me and telling me that I hate women. I am all for women empowerment. Look at how epic “Wonder Woman” was the following year. I just wish this movie were handled better.
When “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” was announced, I was quite excited. I thought it was a little soon for a new “Ghostbusters” outing, but the trailers seemed to successfully balance nostalgia with an immersive, adventurous vibe. It was also nice to see the franchise outside of New York City for once. Unfortunately, I did not get to review the movie due to time constraints. But if you want my quick thoughts, I had a ball with it. I liked the new characters. Paul Rudd was great in his role. The sound design was quite good. And the action sequences were fun. The movie was a delight. The film by no means rewrote what it meant to be a box office success, but it was enough of a hit to justify another movie, in this case “Frozen Empire.”
Just to give a quick ranking of the “Ghostbusters” movies before this one came out, I would have to say the first one is easily the best. “Afterlife” comes in second. “Ghostbusters II” takes third place for me. And again, it pains me just mentioning it, but I have to be honest, my least favorite film of the franchise is the disconnected “Ghostbusters” 2016. So where does “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” rank amongst these movies?
Honestly, smack dab in the middle.
In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an easy thumbs up. There is plenty to like about this sequel. But there is not a lot to love. Does the movie have decent nostalgia? Sure. Does the movie have a good concept? Sure. Is the humor on point? Sure, but it is not as strong as the original movie. Does it handle the newer characters well? Some better than others. This is the one thing about this movie, there are a lot of positives, but when I say positives, I do so knowing that these positives may not be worthy enough for me to go back and watch the movie a second time in the next few months.
Sorry to spoil a movie that is a couple years old, but in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” the four original “Ghostbusters” made an appearance towards the end of the film. And yes, I said four. They found a way to inject the late Harold Ramis into the project. In this installment, three of those four are back, and around for a bit longer. Ernie Hudson and Dan Aykroyd have more notable impacts on the story, but Bill Murray manages to squeeze himself in at some point.
One thing I have noticed about the “Ghostbusters” franchise, at least in the movies, is that all of the ghosts are not on the busters’ side. Obviously, if your crew is about killing ghosts, of course, you are going to not play nice with them. But this movie introduces a ghost character who I thought served as a nice antithesis to that idea to some degree. Specifically, Melody played by Emily Alan Lind. Throughout the film we see young Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) develop a connection with her that drives the plot forward significantly. The two have good chemistry and I like seeing them onscreen together. Some elements as to how their bond starts may come off as far-fetched or convenient, but at the same time, it does make sense in a franchise where the Statue of Liberty basically goes “Night at the Museum” during the climax of “Ghostbusters II.”
Although that subplot does not even bring forth the most convenient, perhaps out of left field part of the movie. Because that honor, if you can call it that, goes to something we see out of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, Nadeem Razmaadi (left center). As much as I enjoyed the climax of this movie, if there is one thing I did not like about it, there is a moment where we see Nadeem do something that had me going “Why?” The moment did not feel authentic. Again, I understand, it is “Ghostbusters.” The franchise has jumped the shark before. But I feel the franchise is at its best when there is a balance between reality and fantasy. This leans too far into the fantasy route for me.
This is not to suggest you have to like one movie over the other, but I have a feeling that if you like the 1980s “Ghostbusters” fare, you might feel more comfortable watching this movie at times compared to “Afterlife.” It’s back in New York City, you have more time with the original cast, and it has a much larger scale and feel. If you like those things, you should, on paper, have an okay time with this movie. But the reality is, much like what I said last week about “Kung Fu Panda 4,” if I were to introduce this franchise to someone, I would just start with the original. This follow-up is entertaining, but it does not change the game. It is not going to be remembered as one of the greats. Maybe I will catch it again on cable one day. “Ghostbusters” seems to have a large presence there anyway. But we shall see. It could be better. But for my money, I had fun with it.
In the end, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is an enjoyable time, but compared to a couple other installments in this franchise, it is not as good. When it comes to pure spectacle, this movie does not fail. There is an action scene in the first act that had me hooked and excited for whatever was going to come next. Was I intrigued by everything that came after? You can say that. But I am not going to pretend I will run down the street screaming my highest recommendations for this film. That said, if you decide to watch it, you might enjoy it. You never know. I am going to give “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” a 6/10.
“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming up in the pipeline including “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” “Monkey Man,” “Abigail,” and “Civil War.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Ghostbusters” movie? And despite everything I said earlier, I welcome any and all opinions about the 2016 reboot. If you like it, more power to you. But for me, the original is the best one. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Dune Part Two” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Wonka, Interstellar), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Greatest Showman), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Austin Butler (Elvis, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Florence Pugh (Black Widow, Don’t Worry Darling), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy, Blade Runner 2049), Christopher Walken (Catch Me if You Can, The Deer Hunter), Léa Seydoux (Crimes of the Future, Spectre), Souheila Yacoub (Making of, Climax), Stellan Skarsgård (Mamma Mia!, Thor), Charlotte Rampling (Restless, 45 Years), and Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, No Country for Old Men). This film is a sequel to the 2021 science-fiction epic based on the novel by Frank Herbert. It follows Paul Atriedes as he journeys with the Fremen while waging war against House Harkonnen.
It is crazy to think how far we are in the 2020s. The decade is flying by. It kind of feels like yesterday when I saw “Dune” for the first time in theaters. By now, I have seen it a few times in theaters, once on 4K Blu-ray, and a couple times on TNT. Safe to say, this film has taken up a significant part of my screentime through the past two and a half years. And like many people, I happened to dig it. I do not think it is by any means the greatest science fiction film ever. If anything, the pacing could have been improved. The color palette could have been tinkered just a tad in select scenes. The film feels far less eventful in its third act than it does in the first two, which felt a bit odd but I was engaged nevertheless. Overall, I thought the first “Dune” was fantastic. It even made my top 10 best movies of 2021 and won Best Picture at the 4th Annual Jack Awards. It is a really good movie and it is deserving of its praise, even if there are science fiction films I would rather watch first.
In fact, of Denis Villeneuve’s filmography, I think it is one of his inferior outings. I liked “Prisoners” better. I liked “Arrival” better. I liked “Blade Runner 2049” better. He did those previous two movies back to back and both were equally sensational. Even with the slightly weaker “Dune” coming afterwards, I will not deny that Denis Villeneuve is not only on a hot streak, but is building a case to become the greatest science fiction director ever. As far as my excitement for “Dune Part Two” goes, it was astronomical. All the trailers were great. The footage looked beautiful. And knowing that the film was shot in IMAX’s specialized aspect ratio was a bonus. I thought the film was made for the theatrical experience, and I was also happy to know that more people were going to get the chance to see this movie the way this and the last film were meant to be seen.
Shoutout to HBO Max for nearly killing movie theaters in 2021.
But the million dollar question is this… How was the movie?
Well, to answer that question… I am going to start off by stating a potential problem the movie has. And that is that I will never be able to watch it for the first time again. I will likely never get to experience the sense of euphoria the way I did seeing this movie during my initial viewing.
For those who nag about me not getting around to certain film classics like “Rocky” or “12 Angry Men,” those who choose to say I am not a real movie fan, I could do the same thing to you when it comes to “Pulp Fiction” or “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but I am not going to. Instead, I am going to tell you I am somewhat jealous because you have the opportunity on your hands to watch those movies for the first time. When I hear someone is going to watch either of those films for the first time, my initial thought is, good for them! I hope they have a time of their life equal to what I myself experienced during my first viewing. I feel the same way about “Dune Part Two,” because while I immensely enjoyed the first “Dune,” not only does this sequel feel like it is on another level, but it is one of the most innovative additions to the sci-fi genre that comes to mind.
And I say this knowing that this is a follow-up that just so happens to be the second half of a first book of a popular series that has already been adapted to both film and TV in the past. Nevertheless, this feels like something new. There are times where I watched “Dune Part Two” and could not help but make a couple “Star Wars” analogies. Based on its technical mastery and power, this film must emit similar feelings to when people watched “Star Wars” for the first time in 1977. Meanwhile, as a sequel, “Dune Part Two” reminds me a bit of “The Empire Strikes Back.”
This is not only because “Dune Part Two” is a high quality second installment, but when it comes to the duel scenes, those are improved here. Not that the duel scenes in the first “Dune” were bad. If anything, they were terrific. That said, the choreography is much more spellbinding this time around. Additionally, I felt incredibly riveted by the story and characters, which made the film’s action scenes all the more exciting. With these two ideas in mind, I can tell you there is a duel towards the end of this film that is nothing short of jaw-dropping. The choreography is so fast that you would think that Sonic the Hedgehog oversaw it. Meanwhile, it is all in the middle of a key scene of the film where the emotions of our characters reach a tipping point. Where the story reaches its finest moments. Where we get some of the finest exchanges and performances in the history of science fiction. There is a moment towards the end of the movie, it is in the trailer, where Paul Atriedes yells, “SILENCE!” As far as pure line delivery goes, it is arguably the most chilling utterance of dialogue of the decade so far. The only other line in a movie that I can think of that came out in the 2020s that rivals this for me is the final line of “Oppenheimer.” Specifically, “I believe we did.”
Another reason why I found myself calling this the next “Empire Strikes Back” is because it goes all out on its antagonists. Stellan Skarsgård returns once again to slay his performance as Baron Harkonnen. Dave Bautista continues to prove himself as a fine wrestler-turned-actor as Glossu Rabban. In fact, not only does Bautista cement himself as a superior wrestler-turned-actor when compared to John Cena and Dwayne Johnson, he convinces me he could rack up one or two Oscar nominations if he keeps up the good work. I have seen Bautista in quite a few movies now. “Dune Part Two” is easily his greatest performance yet. Between the “Dune” movies and “Blade Runner 2049,” I would love to see Bautista continue to collaborate with Denis Villeneuve as much as possible because they tend to bring out the best in each other. Both of these characters are intimidating and well executed. Every moment they are on screen had me hooked.
But the real star of the show, antagonist-wise, is Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha. While I did not love “Elvis,” there is no denying that Butler was the best part of it. Much like that film, his performance just so happens to be one of the best elements of “Dune Part Two.” There is such a sinister nature to this character that is almost beyond reality but in the case of this universe, I immediately bought into it from scene one. Butler makes it believable. This is a guy who will literally kill his own people on a whim, perhaps delivering him a great deal of satisfaction as a result. Feyd-Rautha works so well because he emitted a feeling in me that many great villains should be able to emit. He becomes a character that I love to hate. I would not want to go bowling with this character, but as a villain, he is perfect. Not only that, but Butler sometimes feels unrecognizable. I have not seen him in a lot of movies, but based on what I have seen him in before, he has a flair to his performance here that comes off as individualistic.
That said, this is film is led by Timothée Chalamet. In today’s culture, it is easy to say the idea of “the movie star” is dead. But if there are sparks of that idea that are still alive, then Timothée Chalamet is certainly one of them. And boy is he a fine star. Not only is he young and good looking, not only is he bankable, but he also just so happens to have incredible range. Prior to this movie, he starred in “Wonka.” While I was not a fan of the movie, I thought he handled the material perfectly. He made the movie fun. He was expressive, upbeat, not to mention a mighty fine vocalist. Now we go to his next movie, “Dune Part Two,” where Chalamet’s character is caught in the middle of war, politics, and drama. And Chalamet’s ability to immerse himself into a world like this is impeccable. It feels weird, but one of Chalamet’s hidden talents is making such a scrawny dude come off as one of the most convincing leading figures in recent cinema. Sure, he’s not exactly short, but muscular is not the first word I’d use to describe Chalamet as a person.
I think “Dune Part Two” has an advantage for general audiences. While I cannot imagine this movie being for everyone, I can see this movie having a wider appeal than the first one. The movie not only has more action, but I would say the action is better this time around. I also think this film’s use of Stilgar makes for a great sidekick role of sorts. He almost comes off as a guy you would be sitting next to as you are watching the movie. Maybe he recommended it to you and is guiding you for the ride. Additionally, he has some of the most memorable lines. One of my favorite moments in “Dune Part Two” is when we see him believe Paul refuses to mention he is “the one.” There is a reason why I am seeing the words “As it is written” all over social media right now, it is Javier Bardem does a phenomenal job as Stilgar. He is perfectly cast and I cannot imagine anyone else filling in his shoes.
That said, if you enjoyed “Dune,” that does not necessarily imply you will fail to do the same in regards to “Dune Part Two.” I am proof of that. I really liked the first “Dune.” I gave it a positive review. But I think this sequel feels more adventurous. The score, somehow, is more memorable its predecessor. There is a theme that blares throughout the movie that I cannot get out of my head. It does a good job at expanding the lore and building the world. The acting is better. And as a pure experience, “Dune Part Two” is simply put, superior. One of my problems with the first “Dune” is that it very much feels like an intro guide to the world within. The movie has a three act structure, character development, and pretty much everything else you need to call it a movie. But one of its flaws is that it tends to feel more like a “how to survive Arrakis tutorial” than a journey through Arrakis. Now with this movie, it feels like we are taking the tools we acquired from the predecessor and putting them to the test.
Thankfully, as I write this review, “Dune Part Two” is still playing in theaters. And I must tell you, if you have not seen “Dune Part Two” in a theater yet, do yourself a favor and get your tickets as soon as you can, because this is one of those theatrical experiences you have to see to believe. This is easily one of the best times I ever had in a movie theater. I felt like sand was coming through the speakers the entire time. I thought I was in the middle of the desert. I was convinced the wind was flying in my face. If you told me that I was in Arrakis for two and a half hours, I would have believed you. But there is a reason, above all others, why you should see this movie on the big screen. Sandworms. Yes, there are sandworms in the last movie. But that’s not the point.
In this sequel, there are several minutes in this movie dedicated to Paul first experiencing what it is like to ride a sandworm for the first time. This is one of the most riveting, loudest, most visceral, exhilarating scenes yours truly has ever witnessed. This is one of those scenes that shows why movie theaters are built. It shows why we make big movies for the big screen. When I look back at this scene, it was almost as if I were alive a century or two ago, I had never seen a movie and someone from the distant future time-travelled to when I would exist. That person would then show me the power of what movies could be. This scene is perfection. It was well shot, packed with rambunctiously satisfying audio, and is nothing short of a perfect tech demo. But in both the background and the forefront, we are seeing our characters experience the world in front of them, learn more about each other, themselves, and their abilities. As an audience member, I am getting a great mix of thrills, expansion of lore, and details about certain characters.
The movie makes such a simple moment of learning and adapting look like the most intense thing in the history of the world. This is a scene I will never forget. Once again, a moment like this will show why I would be jealous to find out someone tells me they are about to watch this movie for the first time.
I thought the sandworm action could not get as electrifying as this… Until the second half of the movie happened, and somehow it equaled, if not surpassed the thrills I felt before. There is a scene, you’ll know it when you see it, where there is a shot showing the perspective from a sandworm’s eye. It is one of the most eye-popping, beautiful things I have ever seen on a screen. It’s quick, it’s raw, it’s massive. It is basically an encapsulation that describes the film itself. I was thrilled to no end.
Although going back to the original “Dune,” this brings up something noticeable about this sequel. There is a reason why it has “Part Two” in its title. Obviously, it is the second “Dune” movie, yes. Also, it is the second half of the original book. But this really is true to its name, a “Part Two.” There are several sequels you could watch and appreciate without having to see the original movie. Having watched “Dune Part Two,” this is one of those movies where I feel in order to fully appreciate what is in front of you, it would be worth going back and giving the first “Dune” a watch at some point. Either if you forgot what happened, or if you have never seen it before. Because there are a couple moments that would hit harder if you have that movie under your belt.
I have not seen “Dune Part Two” a second time just yet, but knowing the how lost for words I became by the time the movie was over, my second viewing is definitely around the corner. But I will never forget my first time. And this is where I bring in another “Star Wars” comparison. Much like that 1977 science fiction event, I will look back at “Dune Part Two” as a film that will define a generation. It has flaws. I kind of wish to know how people get off the sandworms once they are done with them. Some of the pacing feels inconsistent, but even in the less consistent moments the story is still exciting. And again, if you have not seen the first movie, it could theoretically lessen the impact of this one just a little. Other than that, there is not much else can I say except this is one of the best fiction movies of the decade, and you should see it as soon as you get a chance.
In the end, “Dune Part Two” fits the classic motto of a fine sequel. It goes bigger, and it is better. “Dune Part Two” is not only superior to its predecessor, but it is also the first great movie I have seen in 2024. It is still early in the year, but I needed this. After “Madame Web,” “Night Swim,” and “Argylle,” I truly needed a movie that I could deem somewhere on the level of a master class effort. And this is that movie. Going back to what I said earlier, Denis Villeneuve is on a roll. While I think Christopher Nolan is the superior director, he has a knack for filmmaking that is on the level of Christopher Nolan. I have not seen all of his work. I still need to watch “Enemy” and “Incendies.” But from what I have seen so far from Villeneuve, I can say that I have not seen a single bad movie from him. I can easily name a least favorite, and that would be “Sicario,” but that is still a movie where there are more positives than negatives for me. If Denis Villeneuve ends up making a third “Dune,” perhaps an adaptation of “Dune: Messiah” that is on the level of these last two movies, it would easily further the case of him being the greatest sci-fi director of all time. Villeneuve is that good at what he does. But it is not just him. You have Greig Fraser’s immensely beautiful cinematography. Hans Zimmer’s roaring score. An incredible ensemble of actors across the board. Timothée Chalamet, Stellan Skarsgård, Rebecca Ferguson, Austin Butler, and Dave Bautista just to name a few! I did not even get to Zendaya! She does a really good job as Chani in this film. Regarding the love connection between Chani and Paul, I bought into it immediately. It is still early, so it is hard to know how this movie will do next awards season. That said, not only could I see this movie getting nominated for Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, …I can totally see it winning. It is that brilliant. I am going to give “Dune Part Two” a 9/10.
“Dune Part Two” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! Be sure to look out for my thoughts on “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dune Part Two?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite scene in film history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Madame Web” is directed by S.J. Clarkson (The Defenders, Jessica Jones) and stars Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey, The High Note), Sydney Sweeney (Anyone But You, Euphoria), Isabella Merced (Transformers: The Last Knight, Dora and the Lost City of Gold), Celeste O’Connor (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Selah and the Spades), Tahar Rahim (The Serpent, The Mauritanian), Mike Epps (The Hangover, Next Friday), Emma Roberts (Nerve, Scream Queens), and Adam Scott (Parks and Recreation, Big Little Lies). This film centers around a woman named Cassandra Webb. When this paramedic discovers she is clairvoyant, she tries to balance learning about her past all the while protecting the future of three teenage girls.
In the moviegoing market, comic book movies are a dime a dozen nowadays. But there are reasons for that. For starters, a lot of them have received positive reviews in recent years. DC titles like “Joker,” “The Suicide Squad,” and “Wonder Woman” have received a lot of love over the years. In the case of the first title, it even got some recognition at the Academy Awards. The MCU has had a lot of positive critical reception and have been darlings with fans and audiences. On Sony’s side, the animated “Spider-Verse” titles have tons of dedicated fans. But let’s not forget the real reason why these films keep getting made. It’s the same reason every film gets made. Profit.
Films like “Iron Man 3,” “Aquaman,” and “Captain Marvel” for example, all made more than a billion dollars. Naturally, Sony wants a piece of that pie as well. And it’s not like they’re a stranger to it. Their collaborations with Marvel Studios, “Spider-Man: Far from Home” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” both joined the billion dollar club. At the time, 2002’s “Spider-Man” became the fastest movie to ever reach $100 million at the box office. But in recent years, the studio has moved over to making films about Spider-Man characters without the use of the webhead as its primary protagonist. “Venom,” despite how much I think it is hot garbage, made more than $856 million. “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” even though it came out when the COVID-19 pandemic kept some audiences at home, still managed to pass the $500 million mark. Then came “Morbius…” With the film grossing $167.5 million against a reported $75 million budget, it barely reached a point of breaking even.
And some may ask why these films seem to be making less than some of their competitors. While there are other factors that definitely come into play, I can shed light on one of them. These films are just not as memorable or high quality compared to say a lot of the MCU installments we have gotten over the years.
If you all remember my review for “Morbius,” I railed that movie into the ground. I wondered why Sony decided to get the writers of “Gods of Egypt,” Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless, to pen the picture. Maybe they are nice people. Maybe they save kittens from trees on a regular basis, I have no idea, but it does not change the fact these two are some of the worst writers in Hollywood. I was especially shocked that Sony saw “Morbius” and thought, “You know who we should get to write our next comic book film?” The guys who gave us that schlocky Jared Leto film we pushed back for a couple years! As for the one trailer released in this film’s lackluster marketing campaign, it honestly did not help things. But of course, there have been plenty of uninteresting trailers to good movies. But what did I think of the movie itself? Well, to answer this question, I am just gonna have to ask anyone who is reading this to strap themselves in. Because this movie is getting the angry, tangent-filled review it deserves. Why? Because this movie is one of the worst I have ever seen in my entire life. I am not exaggerating. I am not being hyperbolic. This may be the worst film of the decade. Period. End of sentence. Done. Finito. The rain has taken the spider out.
This film is the first I have seen where they flashed the Columbia Pictures 100 years logo. I guess it only took a century to make something as truly diabolical and asinine as whatever this ridiculousness happens to be. I do not know how they did it. But somehow, Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless wrote a film that is worse than “Morbius.” Get ready guys, I am about to do something I hoped I would not have to do, use “Morbius” as THE POSITIVE.
While “Morbius” was not great, the film at least started with a hint of promise. Looking back, the film had an okay, not great, but mildly amusing first act that did an alright job at establishing a key relationship in the film. You got to know Michael. You got to know Milo. It actually helps the film somewhat as it shoddily progresses. In “Madame Web,” I was about to break just from scene one.
As far as big budget movies go, this is one of the most headache-inducing I have watched. This may seem like a small thing, but there are a couple moments in the film that had these unnecessary zooms. It felt like the cameraman was trying out a camera for the first time and attempting to figure out how the zoom works! It’s that bad! Of course, the cringeworthy dialogue from the beginning did not help much either. And if you like cringeworthy dialogue, fasten your seatbelts, because you are in for a treat! This movie has it in spades! Disappointingly, “He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died,” is not one of those lines. Yep, that infamously awful line from the trailer, it’s not in the movie. As for the other straight up abysmal utterances of words and phrases that did make it into the final project, they are not much better.
What makes “Madame Web” inferior to “Morbius?” Well, looking back at “Morbius,” I think Jared Leto did a great job staying in character the entire time and Matt Smith had the energy of a lively game show host with an edge. As much as I hate bashing actors nowadays, there is not one performance in the film to write home about.
With the exception of one scene past the film’s halfway mark, I cannot say Dakota Johnson gave her best work in this film. To be fair though, going back to the irritatingly terrible screenplay, it did not help things. The one moment Johnson shines in the film just so happens to be the one halfway decent moment in the screenplay. It is one where we get to have a nice, charming moment between her and another character. It is perhaps the only moment of the movie where any of the characters unleash authentic emotion. It was the one moment of the movie where I didn’t hate myself. Then we get to the next scene, and I am not kidding, where it only took a few lines for me to slap myself in the face like I was the first guy trying to figure out how to cure amnesia.
Dakota Johnson may play the protagonist of the film and had top billing. Given what she had to venture through, I’d argue she was underpaid. Right below her is Sydney Sweeney. In the time it took me to write this review, I think significantly more teenage boys took the time to buy posters of Sweeney to put on their bedroom walls than they did to secure “Madame Web” tickets. Knowing the inexcusably bad execution of her character on the page, I think those teenagers made some comparably reasonable purchases. For one thing, from a casting perspective, I find it hilarious that they ended up casting Sydney Sweeney to play a shy, reserved teenage girl. It might be the funniest casting since getting John Cena to play Vin Diesel’s brother in “F9: The Fast Saga.” Now I have seen twenty-something year old actors play teens decently before, and I have seen suave, confidence-exuding actors play roles that do not quite match those aspects of their real life persona. The profession is called acting for a reason. Look at Ana de Armas in “Knives Out!” She is perhaps one of the most beautiful actresses in the business today, but I don’t think you would get that impression of Ana de Armas if your first watch of her in a movie happened to be “Knives Out.” The best thing I can say about Sydney Sweeney in “Madame Web” is the same thing I can say for Jared Leto in “Morbius.” She did her best with the excruciatingly dull material given to her.
In comic book movie speak, the placement between Sydney Sweeney, the other teenage girls, and Dakota Johnson reminds me of the 2015 “Fantastic 4” reboot. An uninteresting, poorly contrived group of four people that is randomly placed together with no semblance of personality or likability. But you know what? I was able to find more positives in “Fantastic 4” than I did for “Madame Web.” The visual effects look nice, some of the first act was okay, and I think Miles Teller did a good job in the lead role. Meanwhile, “Madame Web” pales visually minus a few creative moments, I rolled my eyes from scene one, and I could not find a good performance even if you put a hypnotist in front of me to convince me that one was in front of me all along.
Speaking of “Fantastic 4,” this film, not to mention their respective distributors, have something in common. They come from similar obligations. Rights maintenance. It’s not show friends, it’s show business. Sony is obligated to commence production on a “Spider-Man” project every five years and nine months. They do not have to release the film, they just have to say that it is in production. After seeing “Madame Web,” I can say to those complaining that studios are not making enough original movies, Sony probably feels your pain. They likely felt that they did not want to make this film and instead, they had to. But you know what they could have done? I don’t know, cancelled it?! Go all David Zaslav on it and scrap it for a tax write-off?! That’s what they could have done! For those who say “Batgirl” should never have been cancelled, I think “Madame Web” may prove why that movie met its fate. After all, “Madame Web” is not making all the money in the world. You know why it is not making all the money in the world? It’s unwatchable! Simple as that!
As a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which this movie does not connect to, I recognize that the entirety of that timeline is not based on the vision of one director, or writer. A lot of it traces back to Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios. As much as I am not one for what many would call studio interference, I will not deny that a lot of the success of the MCU is owed to Feige and his ability to balance connectivity from one project to the next. Not everything is a hit. There have been duds like “Thor: The Dark World,” but everything makes sense and at least feels like it is coming from some hint of passion. Feige cares about what goes on the screen. The filmmakers care about what goes on the screen. I am not saying this film’s director, S.J. Clarkson does not care. But as a whole, this movie feels like made by people who could care less about how it would turn out. Despite how much money these movies make and their extreme presence in popular culture, the MCU movies feel like they are made with love. At least they are when standing next to “Madame Web,” which feels like it was made to fit into a release schedule.
Speaking of release dates, I love how this movie was released on Valentine’s Day. I have never been in a relationship myself, but I nevertheless feel like I am in a fair position to give some advice. If you took your partner to see “Madame Web” on Valentine’s Day, they have every right to use that as a reason to block your phone number, ghost you, or break up with you. I don’t make the rules. I just tell things as they are.
Seriously! Who in their right mind saw “Morbius” and thought the writers should continue working in this cinematic universe? The fact that they were able to conjure a script that is inferior to their previous project is baffling to me.
And if you think I got into the movie’s most shameful moments yet, just wait. You have seen nothing yet. If you have been following this blog for the past five or six years, chances are you may remember my thoughts on “Uncle Drew.” But for those who need catching up, I have to say the movie was not funny, not charming, and completely lacking in any likability whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, “Uncle Drew” has only given me two things. One of the most passionate reviews I have done on this platform, and ire. Not much else. In that review, I titled it the “worst Pepsi commercial ever.” That highly talked about ad with Kendall Jenner has nothing on just how bad that movie was. It was filled to the brim with Pepsi product placement to the point where I almost wanted to chuck a couple Coca-Colas directly at the screen.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think “Madame Web” is now a fine contender to be the worst Pepsi commercial in history.
I am almost scared to know what went on behind the scenes of “Madame Web,” but at the same time, I am curious to know how much money Pepsi shelled out just have the exposure they’ve gotten in this film. Sony films in general are usually obnoxious enough for how much they advertise their own products. Just look at “Gran Turismo!” Not only is that based on a PlayStation exclusive video game, but it also doubles as a Nissan commercial, and ends up making the Walkman an essential element to the story. When it comes to product placement, Sony is arguably the most shameless major studio when it comes to this heinous trend. I understand, movies are expensive and studios need to pay the bills. But why does Pepsi need to be thrown in my face so obnoxiously? At this point, this is not a movie. It’s a giant, uninspired, bloody two hour ad! The real protagonist of this film is not Cassandra Webb, it’s Pepsi!
Speaking of lazy, the ending of this film downright sucks on so many levels. For starters, it reuses footage from Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2.” Not only did it feel like a quick copout, but it made me wish I was watching a much better movie! As for other reasons why the ending sucks, I must once again go back to my old friend “Morbius.”
I said one of the reasons that film did not work for me was because it lied in its marketing campaign about certain things. Unfortunately, Sony learned nothing when marketing “Madame Web.” Because there is an entire segment of the trailer dedicated to showing off something regarding the teenage girls. Now, as mentioned, the teenage girls are in the movie. And that “something” I just mentioned is in the final picture. Unfortunately though, that something is used to basically tease a certain thing in the future. Perhaps a “Madame Web 2.” To that I must say, if you cannot give me a cool movie the first time, why should I care about what you are going to give me the second time? The ending of this movie basically just tells me that after being trapped in front of a screen for two hours, it wants me to come back for an occasion where we actually see something potentially worthwhile. One of the flaws of cinematic universes or modern film franchises in general is that everybody is so concerned about building excitement in regards to what’s next to the point where it is easy to forget that you have to focus on the feature that is in front of you. Additionally, we get a costume reveal for our title character and I have to say, it is strange to look at. Maybe it is because so much of this movie looks dark and greyish at times. Compared to a lot of other comic book movies, the color palette looks bleak. If these Sony Marvel movies have one thing in common, it’s that they look dark and depressing. It sometimes turns me off. I get that characters like Venom are often seen as villains, but still.
Honestly though, the movie is sometimes hilarious, but not in a good way. There is an entire subplot dedicated to the birth of a certain character whose name is never mentioned. As a “Spider-Man” fan, I am able to put the pieces together and determine who this character is, but the way this movie goes about this feels insulting and lazy. The subplot also brings out one of the most cringeworthy jokes in the movie. Basically, Emma Roberts’s character reveals her water just broke, to which one of the teenage girls ends up shouting, “Ewwwwwwww!” I am not joking, to say I facepalmed in that moment would be an understatement. If you were in my auditorium and you heard a loud slapping sound out of nowhere, that was me slapping my hand on my face in anger.
And yes, for those who ask, that was the scene that followed the one decent moment in the movie.
From a technical perspective, “Madame Web” has some okay moments in terms of the action sequences, but nothing I will worship until the day I die. In fact, once again, there is one action sequence that further emphasizes my displeasure with Pepsi’s overexposure throughout this turd of a film. I think the weakest part of the film from a technical standpoint is the sound. Now, everything’s clear. I could hear all the dialogue, in its everlasting, infinite, sigh-inducing glory… But there are multiple parts of the film where I thought I was getting brain damage from how loud the movie was. I watched the film in IMAX, which would naturally mean the sound would be louder. But I have been to numerous IMAX experiences and have witnessed plenty where louder sound has only served as a benefit. Take “Oppenheimer” for example. That trinity test scene was bonkers in IMAX. It was something else. It was one of the most riveting things I witnessed in my entire life simply because I felt like I was a part of that scene. Sometimes “Madame Web” was just loud enough to the point where my headache must have gotten irritated by what was in front of it. Speaking of headaches, the way this movie goes about explaining our main protagonist’s powers sometimes got on my nerves. It’s not that I did not understand it, but rather that it was showcased in such a way that messed with my mind the longer it lasted on the screen.
“Madame Web” is an hour and 56 minutes long. Honestly, that runtime is incredibly flawed. According to my calculations, I think I found the perfect runtime for the film. And that runtime is nothing because a film like this should have never been released. The fact that it even got made is mind-blowing. When this film started, I was turned off. As it progressed, I was seething. When the credits showed up, I stormed out of the theater like a young child who got blue shelled by their friend twice in one race during a session of “Mario Kart!”
I wish I were exaggerating. You may think I am simply telling you this for dramatic effect. It’s true. But I assure you, that short paragraph I just wrote, has more substance than “Madame Web” can provide in less than two hours.
In the end, to call “Madame Web” a joke would make sense, but to do that would be insult against comedy. Because comedy makes you laugh. The only thing “Madame Web” did was intensify my anger. I love comic book movies. I know they are not exactly in the best state right now, but I remember walking out of every MCU movie that came out last year. And even if they were not fantastic, they at least had some redeeming qualities. I know a lot of people have been recently bagging on “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and “The Marvels,” but I dare you to watch those two movies and “Madame Web” in a marathon and tell me that “Madame Web” is not the worst of those three. Because those two movies, despite their flaws, manage to pack in some fun. They deliver good action, neat effects for the most part, and have likable protagonists at the forefront. When I say that “Madame Web” is the worst film of the decade, it is hard to imagine such an assessment being a stretch. Between a wasted superhero story where we barely get any superhero DNA throughout, a lackluster villain, bad writing, terrible jokes, obscene dialogue, and tired homages to “Spider-Man” lore, “Madame Web” is an utterly atrocious mess that will go down in history as one of the most asinine, sloppy, downright criminal pieces of cinema that has ever disgraced the silver screen. Martin Scorsese, if you are reading this, I may disagree with you on comic book movies in regards to whether or not they are cinema. But after seeing “Madame Web,” I think it would be wrong to even call it a theme park ride. Why? …Because theme park rides are fun. I am going to give “Madame Web” a 1/10.
“Madame Web” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Drive-Away Dolls!” Hopefully that will serve as a palette cleanser for the fiendish brain cell-eradicator of a movie I just watched. One can only hope. Also coming soon, I will have my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” and “Kung Fu Panda 4.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Madame Web,” and why did you think it was terrible? Err, sorry! My mind nearly broke for a second, what I meant was, what did you think of the movie? Or, what is the superior project? “Madame Web” or “Morbius?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“I.S.S.” is directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite (Blackfish, Our Friend) and stars Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Chris Messina (Alex of Venice, The Mindy Project), John Gallagher Jr. (Come Play, Underwater), Masha Mashkova (McMafia, For All Mankind), Costa Ronin (The Americans, Homeland), and Pilou Asbæk (Overlord, Game of Thrones). This film centers around a group of American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts who work together at the International Space Station, when suddenly, conflict breaks out between their respective nations back on Earth. Meanwhile, both sides are ordered to take over the space station no matter the method or cost.
If you have known me or followed Scene Before for some time, it is no secret that I love space movies. Some of my favorite movies include “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Interstellar,” and “Star Wars.” When it comes to cinema, I may have a predisposed bias to anything that takes place in space, but it does not mean I am guaranteed to like it. For example, “The Space Between Us” stands as one of the worst travesties I have ever witnessed in the sci-fi genre. But I should note that the movie came out in February 2017. As I and others have noted, February is one of the worst months for films. Right alongside that rathole is its next door neighbor, January, so going into “I.S.S.,” I had to temper my expectations despite the trailer looking decent.
Nevertheless, “I.S.S.” has a presentable concept. I like the idea of taking an object in space that has been the subject of years of collaboration and having war break out on it between its two respective parties. The Americans and the Russians. And when it comes to handling this concept, I have to say the film is very well done. If you asked me if I wanted to go space one day, the answer is a resounding yes. But after watching this movie, it reminds me of my slight fear toward the idea. Because depending on how things go, that childlike dream can potentially become a nightmare. While it is not my favorite of the recent space fare, one movie that has always stuck in my mind both from its technical power and storytelling mastery, is “Gravity.” “I.S.S.” very much reminds me of “Gravity” because the story is not only gripping on paper, but the way it is told allows for some scary moments. “I.S.S.,” much like “Gravity,” is not the best space film I have seen. In fact, I think “Gravity” is the superior watch of the two. But I am going to be thinking about this movie for some time because some of the imagery is vividly haunting. On top of that, the way it goes about handling its characters easily strikes fear as to what could potentially happen if something goes wrong in our world, and eventually makes its way into space. Regardless of how realistic this movie is in its execution, it is one that got me thinking, and I appreciate it for that.
One reason why I think this film is good, but not as good as the recently mentioned “Gravity,” is that I am looking back at the characters, and I have to say they are not the film’s strongest asset. Do not get me wrong, they are not an insult or anything. But as I look back on the film, I do not think I will remember anybody’s name within the next month. The movie sometimes does an okay job at establishing character quirks, individualities, those sorts of things. But sometimes it feels surface level. There is one astronaut, Christian, played by John Gallagher Jr., who we learn has two daughters. They are obviously a driving force for his journey and role. But it is also hard to fully appreciate the character because we are simply told about these characters and never get a visual or audio reference to the daughters themselves.
At the beginning of the review, I mentioned one of my favorite films was “Interstellar,” and one reason why I adore that film so much is because it took its time in letting its audience get to know not just Cooper, the main astronaut, but it also let the audience know about his family. So whenever the film references his family or children, either through his mouth, or simply by showing them, the impact is so much bigger. One of the strengths of “I.S.S.” is that the film is tightly paced in its 95 minute runtime. So if you are looking for a short movie that gets the job done, this is not a bad watch. But the film sometimes suffers from its short runtime, and the more I think about it, its limited scale. The film lets us spend time with a select number of characters, but it also prevents us from having a full-fledged story. Granted, when I look back at “Gravity,” one of its standout scenes is when Ryan and Matt are just having a conversation while floating through space and we learn about Ryan’s backstory about what she does, her origins, and how her dad wanted a boy. But not only was that well written, but the movie does a fantastic job at unleashing memorable performances out of Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. The performances in “I.S.S.” serve the movie quite well. But when it comes to main protagonists, Kira Foster (DeBose) is no Ryan Stone.
But if you want me to be real, the performances, while not legendary, are genuinely good all around. The chemistry between everyone in the cast is perfect. DeBose breaks a leg in the lead role. I thought on the Russian side, Masha Mashkova and Pilou Asbæk were the two most prominent standouts. The moments where all the astronauts meet and get to know each other make for some fun bonding scenes.
Another problem I have with this film is the ending. The ending is not the worst I have seen. But it concludes in such an abrupt manner to the point where I can simply go, “Well, it’s over.” It neither left me wanting more nor did it leave me passionately angry. It just happened. It is like the movie did not how to wrap up so it just whipped something into shape really quickly and said, “Here you go!” Enjoy! Except it was not as enjoyable as it probably could have been. That’s just the reality. “I.S.S.” is both paced well enough to justify its runtime, but lacks just enough depth to make me wish it was longer.
In the end, “I.S.S.” is not the best space movie in recent times, but it is one that I do not regret seeing. The film is not getting the best scores from audiences, and while I can understand why, I cannot say I am in line with those audiences. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 62% critic score and a 44% audience score. I am going to have to lean towards the critics on this one. This is not to say I loved the movie, but I would give it a thumbs up. As a thriller, it is exciting. As a space movie, it is riveting. And while it is not as terrifying as some recent horror fare, it has its moments of chills. Everyone in the film’s small cast does a good job and there are select characters I almost cannot see anyone else playing. Does the film have problems? Yes. But I will not deny that it had my eyes on the screen the entire time. For that reason alone, I would describe my experience with “I.S.S.” to be a positive one. I am going to give “I.S.S.” a 6/10.
“I.S.S.” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand Matthew Vaughn spy flick, “Argylle.” I found myself giving the trailer a lukewarm response, but I have to admit in the past decade, “Kingsman: The Secret Service” has stood out as one of my more rewatched action flicks, so I cannot deny that I at least had some excitement about checking this film out. Was it worth the watch? You will have to find out yourself. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “I.S.S?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite space movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Poor Things” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite, The Lobster) and stars Emma Stone (The Favourite, The Amazing Spider-Man), Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight, The Avengers), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Ramy Youssef (Ramy, Mr. Robot), Christopher Abbott (Sanctuary, Girls), and Jerrod Carmichael (The Carmichael Show, Lucas Bros Moving Co.). This film is based on a book by Alasdair Gray and it is about Bella Baxter, a woman whose body just so happens to be revived as a result of a scientific experiment conducted by the eccentric Dr. Godwin Baxter.
I cannot explain this film’s concept justice. It is not that I do not know what it is about. But even before going to see it, I knew certain things about it that would have made for awkward conversation or have ruined the somewhat vague nature of the film’s marketing. On the surface, the film seems to give enough away. Basically, a woman who happens to be brought to life through science experiences her definition of what it means to live. I think that is a great way to describe this movie without being too detailed, or in some cases, overly graphic. The concept is interesting to say the least. But as far as I am concerned, it was being helmed by someone who I did not completely trust.
One of my least favorite films of 2018 was “The Favourite.” Of that year’s slate of Academy Award Best Picture nominees, that movie was by far the one I considered to be the worst. That film was directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. Other than the fact that I found the film to be a uniquely boring waste of time, it gave me a bad impression of the director to the point where I neglected visiting some of his earlier films. I have heard decent things about “The Lobster” and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer.” But I refused to watch those because I was so turned off by “The Favourite.” As I have said previously on Scene Before, first impressions matter. But I watched the trailer for “Poor Things” and found myself hypnotized, but also with a sense of hesitancy in the back of my mind. But I thought “Poor Things” was worth checking out because much like “The Favourite” five years ago, “Poor Things” has been receiving tons of positive word of mouth. Plus, if Emma Stone continues to trust Lanthimos, maybe I should too.
So, how was the movie? I am very pleased to say that this is a banger of a film. It is not in my top 10 of the year, but it is excellent. I am immensely pleased and surprised by how this film turned out. It is wacky, it is weird, it is a feast for the eyes and ears. Yorgos Lanthimos undoubtedly has a unique style to his filmmaking. But in some ways, this kind of reminded me of a Wes Anderson film. Its color palette is particularly striking, the production design is a perfect blend between reality and fantasy, and the dialogue is almost like an enhancement on everyday life. I might not come across people talking the way these characters do sometimes, but I assure you it makes complete sense within the context of the movie and its universe.
One of the reasons why this film failed to reach the mark of being in my top 10 films of the year is because it starts kind of rough. It takes a bit for the movie to get going, despite inklings of intrigue. There are a couple of moments that I found to be an eyesore. In a movie full of eye candy, there are moments where I found something in the frame quite disgusting to the point where I could not help but wince or look away. It is a bit of a balancing act, really.
Part of the movie is in black and white, and then there is a portion of it that is in color. There were some mixed bags when it came to the black and white scenes. Once we get to the color scenes, that is when the movie unleashes its best material. It is creative, insane, and even with its strange tendencies, everything makes sense. I found every single thing in this film convincing. That said, there are times where the pacing is a tad uneven. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but it is noticeable.
The ensemble of the film is honestly a contender for the best of 2023. To me, it is up there with “Barbie,” “Oppenheimer,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” and “The Holdovers” in terms of being a fine mix between star power, acting ability, and instant charm from everyone involved. Mark Ruffalo has a number of shining scenes that could potentially warrant some extended talk this awards season. Willem Dafoe, per usual, gives everything his all here. During the latter half of the film, I was heavily entranced by Kathryn Hunter as Swiney. The entire cast in this movie is great, but the star of the show, literally and figuratively, is none other than Emma Stone.
Talk about a marvelous triumph of a performance! Emma Stone nails Bella Baxter throughout this entire film. I looked back at Emma Stone’s IMDb and was reminded of some of her career highlights. Of course as a comic book movie enthusiast, I know she played Gwen Stacy in “The Amazing Spider-Man” and its sequel. She did a good job in those films despite them not being up to snuff. She also did one of the better coming of age films of the 2010s, “Easy A,” where she was funny and charming. I liked her in the “Zombieland” movies. Of course she was great in “La La Land.” I even liked her in “The Favourite” despite my negative thoughts on the movie. Given time to marinate, I have to say Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” trumps all of her past work that I have seen. I honestly cannot think of a performance of hers I liked more. “La La Land” comes close, but Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” is comparatively transformative, it is otherworldly. It something that I could have never imagined seeing in my entire life, especially from someone like her. I am not saying Stone is not a talented actress. There is a reason why she has an Oscar on her mantle. But this is a performance that takes what I know about Emma Stone as a person, as an actress, as someone who has seen her in certain movies, and completely subverts my expectations. As I watch this movie, I of course know it is Emma Stone in front of the camera. Her face has become rather recognizable over the years. In fact, even though I have not seen the movie, Stone may come off as less recognizable in Disney’s “Cruella” based on what I have witnessed through images and marketing. But as I watch this movie, despite the low difficulty of realizing the talent in front of the camera happens to be Stone physically, it is a bit harder to conclude that it is her mentally.
Part of what makes her performance so riveting and exciting is how her character easily blends in to the world around her. The script is written in such a way that I would not call it fantasy, but it certainly is not a part of our reality either. The film, kind of like “Everything Everywhere All at Once” meshes so many genres and ideas together to the point where it practically forms a genre of its own. Bella Baxter is one of the most unique characters I have seen all year, and she comes from an equally one of a kind piece of art. And that is what this movie is. Art. I was transfixed by this in the same way some may be transfixed by the Mona Lisa. Again, this is not to say “Poor Things” is one of the year’s best movies, but it is certainly one of the boldest and brightest.
While Bella Baxter might not be my favorite character in a movie I have seen this year, I need some time to think on that front. Baxter is nevertheless in contention to be, idealistically, the most fascinating protagonist created for the screen this year. She has a sympathetic personality, but she also has the mind of a young child and a teenager all wrapped into one person. With those last two ideas, we see a bit of a transition between them, but they are still interlinked somehow as the movie goes. The film is an entertaining study on what happens if you put someone as eccentric as Bella Baxter into our society, or some variant of it. What would she do? How would she behave? This is basically a fish out of water story. And while the fish out of water idea has been done time and time again, I imagine stories like this one happen to factor into why the idea continues to be unleashed in several projects. It is a tried and true method of storytelling that may be familiar, but if you could your own spin on it, it may be worth seeking out. And speaking of things that are worth seeking out, if you have time on your hands and you have not seen “Poor Things” yet, make an effort to see it at some point. Not only is it a great movie, it is one of the most welcome, monumental surprises of 2023. I know a lot of people were looking forward to this film. I was not one of them. If anything, I almost rolled my eyes knowing it exists. But with one AMC A-List punch later, I can say this is one of the better movies of the year.
In the end, “Poor Things” is a great turnaround for Yorgos Lanthimos. This movie took me from resisting his past work to making me want to see more of it. Emma Stone is better than she has ever been. If she is not nominated for an Oscar this season my jaw will be on the floor. I do not know of any actress I could see beating her this year. This is a once in a lifetime performance as far as she is concerned. The film is very funny. There are a lot of stellar lines from various characters. Bella Baxter’s mannerisms and quirks are wonderfully distinguished and brilliantly written throughout the picture. The movie does a good job at splicing all sorts of ideas at the wall and having most of them stick. The pathos was off and on. I do not think I am going to remember “Poor Things” through much of an emotional connection, but again, the comedy worked quite a bit so that makes up for it. The sets are detailed and colorful. I could not take my eyes off of some pieces. And if it were not for some occasional roughness in the first act, this film would probably make my top 10 of the year. You never know though, I could change my mind. I just saw the film. That said, as far as I am concerned, I am glad I saw it. If Lanthimos and Stone reunite in the future, I cannot wait to see what these two do next. I am going to give “Poor Things” an 8/10.
“Poor Things” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, why not check out some of my other ones? Just recently I did reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” “Migration,” and “Wonka.” Check those out when you have a chance! Also, I will soon be reviewing the new romcom “Anyone But You.” That will be up later this week. Also coming soon, I will be announcing my top 10 best and worst movies of 2023. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Poor Things?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Yorgos Lanthimos movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! And welcome one and all to the final entry to the Ridley Scottober review series! If you want to check out my reviews for the other films in the series, such as “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World,” click the provided links and have a ball! Today we will be talking about one of my most rewatched movies in recent years, “Blade Runner.” Also, if you want to see a less professional, perhaps crappier example of my writing, I reviewed “Blade Runner 2049” back when it came out in 2017. I was less experienced, but still had a sense of a writing style of sorts. Check it out! Before we begin this review, I want to make something clear. On this blog, when I review a movie, it is typically of the initial version released in theaters or whatever platform it was designed for. With “Blade Runner,” this is no exception. For this review, I will be using the theatrical version of the film as a baseline. Maybe one day I will do my thoughts on “The Final Cut” as a separate post, which I have seen. But I am treating this movie the same way I treat just about every single other one I watch. That said, if you choose to stick around and read this review, enjoy your stay, make yourself at home, and let’s dive into one of Ridley Scott’s most talked about films.
“Blade Runner” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Duellists) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), Rutger Hauer (Nighthawks, Inside the Third Reich), Sean Young (Jane Austen in Manhattan, Stripes), and Edward James Olmos (Wolfen, Zoot Suit). This film is based on the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and centers around LAPD detective Rick Deckard as he is tasked with hunting down and retiring four Replicants who come to earth on a stolen ship in order to find their creator.
“Blade Runner” is one of those films that has had an impact on me since the first time I saw it back in 2017. In fact, this is not my first time talking about the film on this blog as I once did a post weeks after my initial viewing, talking about what the film got right about the future. Again, much like my “Blade Runner 2049” review, my quality of writing may have been a bit different at the time. Just a fair warning.
Little to my knowledge, “Blade Runner” would have a major influence on my academics. If you knew me in high school, there is a chance that you were with me in a film studies class. “Blade Runner” was the first and last feature film I ended up watching in the class given how much of the curriculum tended to use that film as a backbone of sorts. In college, I ended up choosing to study “Blade Runner” for a final project in my Television & Film Studies class. I have developed a passion for this movie, this property, and if the right people are involved, I would not mind seeing more of it. Judging by what I just said, you already know that this is going to be a positive review. If “Blade Runner” had a personality and made an effort to describe my relationship with it, it would probably channel Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part III” and say “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”
Sorry, “Blade Runner,” my days of discussing you are not over just yet.
But I cannot help it, because “Blade Runner” is a master class effort. I think it is a particularly unique film. And it has done a lot to influence many stories that came after. The film is based on Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” which a number of claim is the earliest example of cyberpunk. This sub-genre has remained popular over the years with titles across various mediums like “Akira,” “The Fifth Element,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Altered Carbon,” and “Cyberpunk 2077” just to name a few. It is easy to get lost in a good movie with proper atmosphere, and when it comes to the cyberpunk nature of “Blade Runner,” getting lost in 2019 Los Angeles, or at least what this movie makes it out to be, is as easy as pie.
One of the basic rules of filmmaking is to show, not tell. And that is going to be an ongoing theme in this review. Because everything this movie shows is remarkable. There are tons of practical effects that are beautiful to the naked eye. The production design for this film is off the charts. There are very few films that are like this one aesthetically, and I say that knowing how much cyberpunk has evolved over the years. This film released in the 1980s, a time where cars looked quite different than they do today. And when I look at the vehicles in “Blade Runner,” they definitely have a look at the time that screams futuristic, but I admire how they seem to carry a vintage charm to them. I could totally buy the design of Deckard’s spinner in the film, even if it seems to look a bit like something from the time this movie came out.
Framing-wise, this is one of the coolest-looking films I have ever seen. Despite the film claiming it is set in Los Angeles, it feels like a different kind of environment. This film, at least at the time it came out, is science fiction. There is also a bit of a film noir undertone as well. This movie’s use of the color blue throughout is vivid in my memory. The color palette always packs in a blue tone. You can see hints of bluish lighting throughout the film. And one nice little touch in the background during various scenes are the many umbrellas going about the streets. Their handles have a bluish neon glow to them, almost like Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber in the early “Star Wars” installments. Speaking of “Star Wars,” one of my favorite Easter eggs about “Blade Runner,” if you pay close attention, is that there is a building in the film that resembles the look of the Millennium Falcon, Han Solo’s ship. And to top it off, Han Solo’s respective actor, literally plays the main character of this movie!
Sticking on the topic of things that look cool, one of the most intriguing designs in the whole film is the Tyrell Skyscraper. This building is utilized throughout multiple portions of the movie, and every time I look at it, I cannot help but stare in awe and wonder. The inside is enormous and carries a robust flair to it. From the outside with the help of lights shining through the windows, it looks screensaver-worthy. I also admire how the pyramid design allows for tons of incline elevators to be put in place throughout the premises. If you know me in real life, I am a bit of an elevator geek. If I were in the “Blade Runner” universe, one of the first things I would do is go into the Tyrell Skyscraper just to ride the elevator.
But just because this movie shows all sorts of cool things, does not mean it tells all sorts of cool things. Now to be fair, the dialogue in this film is minimalistic and it is perfect. There are plenty of scenes where the characters are completely quiet or there are inklings of silence. If you watched other versions of the movie, this will not matter, but if you watch the original version, there is a chance you may remember Harrison Ford’s character, Deckard, not only serving the film as a protagonist, but as a first-person narrator. While there are moments where the narration is not that much of a big deal, there are some that overexplain what is happening, and others that ruin the visual experience of this movie. One of the highlights of this film for me, from a visual perspective, is the scene where we see Deckard and Gaff inside the spinner, flying through a darkened Los Angeles. The aerial shots really help encapsulate the beauty of the city, even with a supposed sense of gloom in its people. The problem is, the scene, which has no dialogue from the characters, also features narration from Harrison Ford that sort of overembellishes the idea of cityspeak, a mix of pre-established languages. It is not really something I would need to know or care to know on my first viewing. It honestly reminds me of when I watch certain broadcasts of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” on ABC, and Ryan Seacrest is talking up a storm as I am trying to take in the first moments of the new year. I am basically trying to hear the crowd, listen to Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York,” and feel like I am there with everyone. But much like Seacrest’s voice on those occasions, Harrison Ford’s voice is nothing more than added noise. At the end of the day, it does not do much to benefit the film. There are a couple voiceovers that do not colossally damage the experience, but there are plenty that are better left unused. This is especially true for one used towards the end of the film where a crucial character’s arc is fulfilled. We are seeing this moment play out, and I am enjoying every second. Then it is suddenly interrupted with voiceover lines from Harrison Ford that basically spitballs what is happening for the audience, instead of allowing them to take in the lesson from the narration themselves. It is kind of insulting the more I think about it.
That said, I watched a documentary on the making of this movie, “Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner.” And if you have the Blu-ray edition of “The Final Cut,” you can watch it yourself. Harrison Ford revealed not only that he thought the narration, which was added due to poor test screenings, was awful, but he ended up doing it with reluctance. Ford was contractually obligated to complete the lines, so he did what he had to do. He tried his best with the material, but he did not think it was necessary.
Though speaking of Harrison Ford giving his best effort, his performance as Rick Deckard is perfect. The character easily blends into his increasingly depressing environment. He is the kind of guy who will not take any nonsense from anyone, but also kind of has a softer side on occasion. There is nothing overblown about this character, especially when you compare him to some of Harrison Ford’s earlier performances, like those he previously gave as Han Solo. In fact, much of what makes Ford’s character believable in his environment is his tendency to remain quiet during certain scenes, which is balanced perfectly by the mannerisms of this film’s antagonist, Roy Batty.
While Harrison Ford may be the most iconic face in the movie, I think the award for best performance in this film easily goes to Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. I have no idea if Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, this film’s writers, wrote this character with any particular actor in mind, but Hauer is one of the best castings for an antagonist perhaps in the history of cinema. There is a ton of range in a character like this one. When we first see him, his execution of the film’s dialogue is quite direct and to the point. It is almost kind of robotic, which should play into the fact that he is a Replicant. But as we go through the film, there is a continued sense of humanity that develops within this character. You can hear it in his voice, and even his physicality. I said there is a balance between Batty and Deckard, and I mean that wholeheartedly. It is perfectly displayed in the film’s climax, which is not particularly the most epic of climaxes, but it is one that serves the movie to perfection. That said, while I am ultimately rooting for Deckard, I cannot help but admire Batty throughout the climax because every other line out of him sounds like a grounded cartoon. This may be weird to say, but having rewatched this film for review purposes, the dynamic between these characters in the climax almost reminds me of a father and son playing tag or chasing each other around the house. It almost feels carefree even though there are higher stakes involved. Well, that, and there are moments where Batty twists Deckard’s fingers to get revenge.
The movie also kind of ends on a weird note. Again, this is the original cut we are talking about. There is a final scene, which believe it or not, uses footage that was originally made for Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining,” it is unbelievably rushed, and kind of uneven when consider how most of the film is paced. “Blade Runner” is kind of a slow burn, and by the time we get to this scene, it kind of kicks things up a gear or two. It is really weird. Overall, it is an abrupt scene. And while I definitely prefer the more open ending offered in future versions, I think if this movie were trying to go for a more upbeat ending, they probably could have gone for a longer scene. This scene is too quick, too in your face, and appears to be the result of a last minute decision that likely was not even on Ridley Scott’s mind while making his way through much of the film’s production.
Doing this review in 2023, I realize that some of the problems I have with the movie are those that tend to bog down the original cut and eventually get changed in later versions. That said, there is one problem I have with this movie that has lingered with me for years. While I think Sean Young and Harrison Ford have fabulous chemistry together as Rachel and Deckard, and every scene delivers the best out of each actor, I am not a fan of how their love blossoms. If you can call it that. This movie is written by two men, and I am sure that if a woman were credited with the screenplay, the scene where Rachel and Deckard first embrace their love for each other would have been handled differently. Basically, Rachel is trying to leave Deckard’s residence, but before she can get out, she is barricaded by Deckard, preventing her from making an exit, and pushed to a window. The two do end up embracing each other and confirming their love for each other, but the way it happens feels for starters, unrealistic, but also, kind of unsettling. It reminds me of another movie I have rewatched several times over the years, “Revenge of the Nerds,.” In that movie, sure, Betty and Lewis end up confirming their love, or perhaps more accurately at the time, lust, for each other. But the way that initiates is from Lewis basically assaulting her if you break it down. And much like “Revenge of the Nerds,” I will not deny that “Blade Runner” has reminded me of my love for movies in one way or another. But if I had to name a standout flaw with both films, and it is a monumental one, it would be a central love connection that may seem believable in the end due to proper chemistry, but is initiated in a way that can described as off-putting and erroneous.
As mentioned, “Blade Runner” is an example of cyberpunk, which likely takes inspiration from large cityscapes, but in a way, puts them on steroids. That said, even with a somewhat over the top nature provided throughout this movie’s interpretation of Los Angeles, everything around the city in terms of the environments and characters felt completely grounded. There is rarely a moment of this movie that I could not buy. This movie also manages to insert, for the most part, believable product placement. After all, it is set in a major city, so tons of advertising is to be expected. But from the very beginning, the frame is often bombarded with neon, noise, or product acknowledgments from companies like Budweiser or Coca-Cola. Ridley Scott manages to deliver an atmosphere with “Blade Runner” that not only emits realism, but for the entire runtime, makes me feel like I am there.
Though if I had to finish this review with one thing, it is that few movies, in fact few franchises for that matter, tend to answer the question, “What is human?”, like this one. I think Roy Batty, despite being an android, is perhaps one of the greatest encapsulations of that question in the history of film. We see him from the very start of his journey wanting more life. It is established that Replicants tend to have a four-year lifespan. Obviously, most humans live a lot longer, and that is something that he is trying to achieve. But if anything, this movie shows that life is not something you should take for granted. I am 23 years old. In fact, as I am writing this review, I am going to be 24 in just over a week. This movie reminds me to enjoy the moment, even in the darkest of times. Even in a city where the rain never stops, there may be one or two moments of sunshine. This movie may be set in a depressing future, but it is one where beings tend to find inklings of joy to keep themselves busy, whether that inkling can be defined as enjoying some noodles, playing chess, or fiddling with a piano. The beauty of “Blade Runner,” despite coming off as a slow burn and a thinker film, is its simplicity. At its core, “Blade Runner” is about a cop trying to stop a group of targets before it is too late. Everything else is just a bonus, and a mighty bonus it is. Because as far as I am concerned, there is a reason why I have rewatched this film so many times over the years, because it is that good.
Oh, and to answer the often debated question amongst fans, Deckard is a Replicant.
In the end, “Blade Runner” is one of Ridley Scott’s best films, even with its flaws. Again, a lot of the flaws I have in this review did get resolved, but I imagine if I did watch “Blade Runner” back in 1982, I would be having a ball with it. Unfortunately, the film did not do too well when it came out. It polarized critics, made an underwhelming amount at the box office, and possibly suffered from studio notes. Having to compete with another excellent and successful film, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” probably did not make things any easier. Even with that in mind, the film has a lot to offer. Exciting action, likable characters, incredible story arcs, life lessons, captivating writing, stellar direction, brilliant lighting, and stunning effects that make a number of modern movies that rely on CGI pale in comparison aesthetically. I must add, Vangelis’s score is also an absolute banger. “Blade Runner” is one of the best-looking movies I have ever seen, and it is hard to believe it looks this good over forty years later. But these looks are supplemented by a narrative that did nothing more than grabbed my attention and kept it for a couple of glorious hours. I am going to give “Blade Runner” a very high 8/10.
Again, if I were reviewing “The Final Cut,” I might honestly give a higher score. But I am treating this review the same way I am treating the other ones I typically do. And if you want me to be honest with you, as much as I love the original “Blade Runner,” it feels odd to say because I have not watched it in a while, but I honestly think “Blade Runner 2049” is the superior installment. It has all the positives of the original movie, but does some things to improve on it as well. Much like the original, that is another film that I have watched incessantly. In fact it finished as my runner-up for best movie of the 2010s. And if I could go back and do my review of it again, I would give it a 10/10 if I had the chance. Few films made me escape my reality and bring me to another world like that one did. I highly recommend if it is a rainy day, do a “Blade Runner” double feature. Both movies are absolutely worth your time and are two of the finest examples of what sci-fi can be.
“Blade Runner” is now available on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available through various streaming services.
Thanks for reading this review! And I hope you enjoyed my entries to the Ridley Scottober review series! I had a lot of fun doing these. I got to check out some films I have never seen before, in addition to watching one for the umpteenth time. I had a blast doing these and I hope you had fun reading them. If you want to see more reviews, good news! I have more coming soon! I will soon share my thoughts on “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Blade Runner?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite science fiction movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Creator” is directed by Gareth Edwards (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Godzilla) and stars John David Washington (Tenet, Amsterdam), Gemma Chan (Eternals, Crazy Rich Asians), Ken Watanabe (Inception, The Last Samurai), Sturgill Simpson (Queen & Slim, The Hunt), and Allison Janey (Mom, I, Tonya). This film is set during a time where humanity and artificial intelligence are at war. The story shares what happens when one human soldier finds the robots’ secret weapon. A young child.
As a science fiction junkie, I feel like we have been spoiled over the past decade in regards to IP between “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Star Wars,” and depending on how the second film ends up doing months from now, “Dune.” Science fiction is easily my favorite genre in film. It can range all over the place in tone, atmosphere, and can sometimes be really thought-provoking. Going back to the “Star Wars” example, Gareth Edwards has honestly made my second favorite thing that has been done during the Disney “Star Wars” era, specifically “Rogue One.” I love how that movie manages to enhance a certain plot hole from the original, introduces a great story and concept, and unleashes an utterly likable antagonist in Director Krennic. Now, when it comes to the final product, it is hard to determine how much Edwards had to do with everything in it, but he handled that movie perfectly. It is easily a highlight of the “Star Wars” franchise. His “Godzilla” movie… Well, I guess it is fine. Not perfect, but I thought the climax was worth watching.
But if you look at Gareth Edwards’s resume in recent years, you would notice that he, like some other directors, has descended deep into popular properties. “The Creator” is a bit of a departure from his recent work as it is an original idea. I was really looking forward to this film because it was an original piece in addition to one that has Edwards’s touch. If you have both of these things, it may summon a winning combo. And thankfully, it does. For the most part, that is.
I have heard other people praising this movie as if it is amongst the top sci-fi classics. I disagree. That said, I think that this is a solid outing for Gareth Edwards. John David Washington is good in the lead role. It is a marvelous debut for Madeleine Yuna Voyles acting-wise. One of the more controversial topics in film is the idea of hiring prominent child actors. After all, they’re young, they do not have the experience that more adult actors do, and there is also the issue of labor laws. But I have to say, Madeleine Yuna Voyles handles the material given to her with utter ease. She is incredible throughout the picture and I would love to see more from her. I honestly could not believe this was her first role.
Much like many other sci-fi classics through the ages, “The Creator” did a fine job at making me think. If there is one thing to note about this film, I think they released this at the perfect time. “The Creator” has come out at a time where artificial intelligence is already here, we are using it, and we honestly do not know where that is going to take us as a society. If there is any reason why you should see this movie, there is a good chance that it may remind you of something that is happening in your life. More and more people are handling technology and A-I to the point where it makes me wonder where we will take the technology, or where said technology will take us. This movie establishes that certain sectors of mankind should have no problem destroying A-I because it does not have emotions, it is just programming. It cannot “feel” death. But this movie makes me wonder what we will interpret as the greater good should A-I be taken to a point one could consider to be too far. The movie, on a surface level, shows what happens when A-I becomes a part of our everyday lives and we eventually resist it, but there are also many other people out there who refuse to give it up. To some people, it is so essential that they cannot see themselves living without it. To them, it is a part of evolution. It is like a generation gap except with a segment of the world.
That said, when I say that, the film also seems to treat A-I the same way another enjoyable sci-fi film, “District 9,” treats aliens. The film does suggest that A-I can be considered a threat for the most part, but it also shows that A-I kind of blended with humans over the years to the point where the two groups work together sometimes. Speaking of comparisons, “The Creator” very much reminds me of another one of my favorite science fiction films, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” Only in this case, the roles are reversed where the kid is the robot and the adult is the human. I am not saying that this movie is as good as those, but if you want a proper set of comparisons, these are the two that instantly come to mind. But there are plenty of others I could make too.
This film reminds me of “Rogue One” from its aesthetic which seems to have been carried over by Gareth Edwards. In fact sometimes various environment have a more down to earth “Star Wars” vibe. Obviously with the technology aspect, “2001” comes to mind. And speaking of Gareth Edwards films, you could even say “Godzilla” is an easy comparison to make given how a major catalyst for events to come throughout the movie happens to be a nuclear explosion. Maybe I am overthinking this, but I wanted just a little more out of “The Creator.”
“The Creator,” despite its original name, spends a lot of time taking things that have worked in prior science fiction stories and putting them all in one package. This is nothing new. I compare films all the time, whether they are good, bad, or in between. But with “The Creator,” the comparisons are abundant, perhaps not in the best way. I understand that as stories continue to be told, it becomes harder to come up with something new. But when this movie came out, I felt like that was what was being delivered to us. Instead we got “District 9” meets “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” with some other ideas in the mix. Both of those are really good movies. I saw “District 9” not long before seeing “The Creator” and had a good time with it. “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is a hallmark of the science fiction genre and does a really neat job at addressing its A-I infused message. When it comes to “The Creator,” I am going to look back at it and call it the film that tried to be the next “Terminator,” only to remind me of why I would rather watch “Terminator 2.” Or even the first “Terminator” for that matter. I think “The Creator” is a fine watch, and if you do go and support it in theaters, I think you are doing yourself a favor because it is a nice choice amongst the catalog of movies out right now. You cannot go wrong with it. But I honestly think the movie is slightly lacking in substance and despite it trying to present itself as a new idea, it feels somewhat familiar.
If I had to name the biggest positive of the movie, it is not the fact that it is an original movie being made today. If you look hard enough, you will find them in almost every corner. What matters is going to support them. And of course it would also help if the movie itself is good, which this one is. But this movie cost $80 million to make. There have been cheaper films, and there have also been more expensive films. But they use the budget nicely. Because effects-wise, the film honestly looks superior to some of the bigger blockbusters we are getting nowadays. If you look at a couple movies from last year like “Moonfall,” which cost $150 million, or even “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which cost $250 million, I would honestly say that “The Creator” packs in more polish and pizzaz than both of those examples. $80 million is a lot of money, but when you consider how much certain films are being made for in these times, I think the money was utilized to its full potential. When it comes to the world of “The Creator,” I was in awe. But once the movie concluded, I left wanting more. And I do not mean a sequel. I mean more in terms of what we got in the span of a couple hours. What we got was decent, and the movie does admittedly fly by pacing-wise. But if you ask me, it could have been better.
In the end, I had high expectations for “The Creator,” and walking out, maybe I should have considered whether they were too high. That said, it was a fine one time watch. “The Creator” has a marvelous idea behind it with a decent message and interesting characters. Performance-wise, Allison Janey is a standout as Howell. The movie does an excellent job at building a world that I could sometimes get lost in, even if it at times feels like a world from somewhere else. The characters are likable, the performances are good, and this includes the gem of a debut from Madeleine Yuna Voyles. She is going places. “The Creator” is not gonna be on my top 10 of the year, but I will say it is a fine movie. I am going to give “The Creator” a 7/10.
“The Creator” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “The Creator,” you might want to know that I have reviews coming up for “Dumb Money” and “It Lives Inside.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Creator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Gareth Edwards’s films he has done thus far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Blue Beetle” is directed by Ángel Manuel Soto (Charm City Kings, Menudo: Forever Young) and stars Xolo Maridueña (Parenthood, Cobra Kai), Adriana Barraza (Babel, Drag Me to Hell), Damian Alcazar (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Narcos), Bruna Marquezine (En Familia, Breaking Through), Raoul Trujillo (Apocolypto, Sicario), Susan Sarandon (Thelma & Louise, The Rocky Horror Picture Show), and George Lopez (George Lopez, Rio). This film is about Jaime Reyes, a recent college grad who is given powers courtesy of an alien scarab. Now in possession of his newfound abilities, he must use his new tricks to save his family, and the world.
Comic book movie fatigue… They are the three words that a plethora of people watching entertainment appear to spew every now and again, until it suddenly goes away. As for myself, I can say it is something I have never experienced. I have loved comic book movies ever since I was a kid, and I continue to do so today. Even if a talented filmmaker like Martin Scorsese calls them theme parks, it has not stopped me from endorsing them. In fact, throughout the decade, we have gotten a couple bangers like “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” In fact, just this year, we saw “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” which is now in contention to be amongst my top 5, if not top 3, comic book movies of all time. It is a one of a kind, game-changing, and earth-shattering addition to the genre. It has a certain kind of specialty to it that I have not witnessed in years. Despite being spoiled with “Across the Spider-Verse” recently, which somehow surpassed my monumental expectations, I will say “Blue Beetle” on the other hand had me less interested going into it.
Now let me be clear, I have seen every DCEU movie thus far. Everything from “Man of Steel” to “Birds of Prey.” I even saw “Wonder Woman 1984” in theaters. I even saw the last two that I have come to realize a lot of people ended up skipping. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” and “The Flash.” And honestly, both movies are quite good. They’re nowhere near perfect, but they delivered plenty of joy, brought some cool action to the table, and I had a lot of fun watching both. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” definitely had its cliches, but I still had a blast watching it. “The Flash” had a well executed story, a great protagonist, and a couple clever sequences. Admittedly, I kind of understand why “The Flash” did not do well for the most part. If you skipped the movie because of Ezra Miller, I am not going to hold that against you. It is the same thing I said about “West Side Story” when it comes to Ansel Elgort at the time. That said, Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” is excellent and has my full endorsement. You absolutely should watch it if you have not done so already.
But I imagine part of why DCEU movies have not done so well recently can contribute to a number of factors in addition the recent Ezra Miller shenanigans. Less than stellar marketing. Interesting release date choices. Underusing core characters like Batman and Superman. Making some movies rated R, therefore excluding the younger audience. Although given how it gave us “The Suicide Squad,” I have no complaints.
From the beginning, audiences lost their trust in the brand early. I liked a lot of the DCEU, but it does not change the fact that most of these movies play second fiddle to the MCU, which has defined comic book cinema for years. Since the pandemic started, every single one of these movies underperformed at the box office to some degree (granted, some went straight to HBO Max). Even “Black Adam” ended up making less money than I would have expected. But can “Blue Beetle” change things or is it too little too late?
Well… Given how James Gunn and Peter Safran are going to hit the reset button pretty soon I think the latter may be the more definitive answer in this case. But in reality, if you want to know my thoughts on “Blue Beetle,” I walked out of the movie having a good time. Much like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” this definitely relies on known beats to further things along. But as I have said about certain films, familiar things can work if they are done well, and that is the case with “Blue Beetle.”
The story and the rivalry it forms feels very been there done that. Basically, someone is creating an advanced machine that can potentially be utilized for war, and now it has to be stopped before things get out of hand. The technology of interest from Kord Industries in this film felt very much like something from Stark Industries. But what makes this giant tech company work is the protagonist’s developed connection to it.
After all, Jaime is a recent college grad. As someone who graduated college in the past year and a half, I found myself in a somewhat similar rut to Jaime at this point of his life. Basically, now that college is over, he is trying to find a job, but he cannot get anything no matter how hard he tries. That was my life for an extended period until I found myself in a couple positions right now that I am happy with. One of my favorite lines in this film is something I have always wondered on my job search. Jaime at one point asks how he is going to get experience if no one is going to give him a job. It is honestly one of the most relatable sentences I have ever heard. How can one prove themselves if they are never given the chance to do so?
One of the reasons why I was somewhat worried. Not completely worried, but somewhat worried, about “Blue Beetle” is that prior to the release of the film, it was announced that the film would go straight to HBO Max, or Max as it is now called. That was also going to be the case for a “Batgirl” movie starring Leslie Grace, which eventually got scrapped. As much as I am not a fan of the way certain things have been handled at Warner Bros. recently under David Zaslav, I will defend the scrapping of “Batgirl” because I worry its release would have done more harm than good for DC, which is already somewhat weak in the public eye to a certain degree. On the other hand, “Blue Beetle” got promoted to a theatrical release. The way all movies should be shown in my opinion… But this had me weary about the overall look of the film. Would it look too artificial? Too fake? Would the CGI look like something from many years ago?
Thankfully, that is not the case. In fact, I think of all the DC movies that have come out this year, “Blue Beetle” may be the best looking of all of them. I can drop a compliment for all the DCEU titles and their looks this year. I even thought “The Flash” looked okay at times, but I think there are a few moments of painfully obvious CGI or green screen. But this film is colorful, bright, and has a lively feel to it at all times. It does not look like a straight to streaming title, which may be a small part of why it got promoted in the first place. Like many entries of the comic book movie genre, there are some occasionally obvious effects, but even those are not dealbreakers. They never took me out of the movie. But the ultimate question is… Does “Blue Beetle” look like it was made for television? That would be a no. I have seen better looking movies of this caliber, but I have also seen worse. That said, I am not going to pretend this is on the level of “Avengers: Endgame.”
Again, when it comes to the comic book movie genre, I think it is obvious that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is king when it comes to that market. But I would say even their better movies like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Doctor Strange” fall by the wayside when it comes to the villain. One of the more prominent positives I have with “Blue Beetle” is the fact that the villain is actually kind of intimidating. Susan Sarandon does a pretty good job with the material given to her as Victoria Kord. Granted, if I had one complaint about her it is that she does emit some nearly one-dimensional mustache-twirly vibes every once in a while. Yet with that in mind, she still plays the part perfectly. But first impressions often matter in movie, and I knew from the very beginning, through decent on-screen execution, that I was not supposed to like this character.
Ultimately, it is the antagonist’s intimidation in this film that only makes the protagonist’s journey all the more exciting. I enjoyed watching Xolo Maridueña not only as the Blue Beetle in action, but as his other self, Jaime Reyes. A foundation of a lot of great comic book superheroes are the people behind the mask, and that is why despite the vast number of Spider-Man stories we have seen over the years, I will not deny the instant charm of Peter Parker, no matter who is playing him. Well… Okay, I don’t think Andrew Garfield truly shined as his Peter persona until “No Way Home.” But what makes Reyes work is that classic superhero/personal life balance that suddenly enters his life. While he is busy following his task of saving the world, he also has his family, he has a new love interest, he has to find a career. But balancing all of that becomes a bit harder with his newfound responsibilities. The marketing of “Blue Beetle” very much forwards the notion that the protagonist does not want to be in the situation he finds himself in. While in some cases it may not be exciting to have a protagonist who wants to avert from adventure, “Blue Beetle” makes it work to the best of its ability. Going back to Peter Parker, he makes the choice to be who he is because his mentor dies. He chose the superhero life. With Jaime Reyes, the superhero life chose him before he could turn back. Sure, Reyes took his responsibility into his own hands, and despite some initial aversion, he may have found glimmers of fun in his journey, but his resistance to his powers become a driving force throughout the much of the film. This whole idea is kind of relatable. If I suddenly became a superhero, awesome. I would love to fly around in the air and wave hi to people on a plane. But if that power came with some extra outside factors, I would like to know about them before going any further.
As for other standouts in the film, I would have to say I really enjoyed Reyes’s family. All of them are well portrayed by their respective actors, well-written, and by the end of the film, they kind of gave me the same joy that I got from say the Parrs in “The Incredibles.” This may also feel kind of gimmicky, but I always enjoy seeing an elderly woman, in this movie’s case, the character of Nana, wielding a machine gun and going to town with it, which does happen by the film’s end. The film has some genuinely fun, joyous moments, and I left the cinema with a smile on my face. While it may not be the next “Anchorman,” “Blue Beetle” has some funny moments in it as well.
As a comic book movie, “Blue Beetle,” like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” kind of scratches the surface and relies on some familiar beats. But I will not lie and say that they made for a well-structured, well-paced, and entertaining story. I even enjoyed the climax of the film, which does feel a bit familiar, but it ends in such a way where I admired the thinking of the characters in the situation. Speaking of the characters, all of them emit charm and come off as people I would want to hang out with.
In the end, “Blue Beetle” is a really good time. This movie honestly deserves to do better than it is doing right now. As of this writing, the film’s box office total has surpassed its budget. That said, it probably would need to make anywhere around two to three times that to break even. I am not going to pretend I am loving everything Warner Brothers is up to right now, but I am always happy to see when a film I like succeeds. But if you want a great movie to watch about a compelling family with a fascinating hero in the center of it all, I recommend “Blue Beetle.” I think of the DC movies that have come out this year, this is my favorite one they have done. It is a far cry from my favorite DCEU entry, “The Suicide Squad,” but if you are looking for something to watch in the theater right now, this is a solid option. It might even be good to watch with family. There is one intense scene that may be hard to watch, but other than that, this is a fine family movie night option. I am going to give “Blue Beetle” a 7/10.
“Blue Beetle” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Speaking of intense movie moments that may be hard to watch with your family, my next review is going to be for the brand new R-rated comedy “Strays.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Gran Turismo,” “Meg 2: The Trench,” and “Bottoms!” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account. Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Blue Beetle?” What did you think about it? Or would you want superpowers? Why or why not? And if you do want them, which would you like to have if you could only choose one? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is directed by Steven Caple Jr. (The Land, Creed II), and stars Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, A Star is Born) and Dominque Fishback (Judas and the Black Messiah, Project Power) in the latest adaptation of the Hasbro toy that has become a phenomenon. This time around, the story is set in the 1990s and features the Cybertronian Autobots and Maximals as the two transformative groups must unite to save the planet from Unicron.
“Transformers” was my childhood. Specifically the first Michael Bay movie. Keep in mind, I was born in 1999. I watched that film at least twice every month in 2008 until the earlier half of 2009. I still own it on DVD to this day. As far as CGI goes, the film continues to hold up and rival some of what has come out years later. I even think at times it looks better than its franchise successors. “Age of Extinction,” which kind of has a so bad it is good vibe to it, especially comes to mind. Michael Bay is not my favorite director. In fact, I thought his last film, “Ambulance,” is an atrocity against civilization. Therefore, I was glad to know that, like “Bumblebee,” Bay was not at the helm for this film.
For those of you who followed me long enough, you would know that I never got around to reviewing “Bumblebee.” But I ended up watching it for the first time this month and I thought it easily was the best “Transformers” movie we have gotten since 2007. I think it finally had a main human protagonist that actually exuded charisma and did more than just freak out or spew a one liner every time they saw a robot. I liked Hailee Steinfeld as the lead and thought the movie was a nice blend of “E.T.” mixed with hints of “The Iron Giant.” If that movie did not exist, this franchise may have remained on life support. Michael Bay ended up making too many movies and the further this franchise proceeded, the further the insanity proceeded. “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not a straight up sequel to “Bumblebee” but appears to be set in the same timeline of sorts. Regardless of its placement in the grand scheme of things, I had a good time with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts.” It is a slight step down from “Bumblebee,” but it is still a trek up from the past couple Michael Bay outings.
“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not without its flaws. The film is about as predictable as movies like this can get at times, but as the old saying goes, it is not about the destination. It is the journey. Thankfully, the journey is quite good. But on the topic of predictability, one thing I was not able to predict was the end of the film. There is a certain event at the last minute that caught me off guard. Those of you who have seen the movie, know exactly what I am talking about. For those of you who are planning to see the movie at some point, fasten your seatbelts.
Speaking of predictability, one cliché this movie continues is that despite the movie being called “Transformers,” it might as well be called “Humans,” because it centers around a human protagonist. I kind of get why that is the case because the audience needs someone to relate to. It is a bit harder to relate to robots from Cybertron. But either way, it is a noticeable trend that has not stopped. That said, the humans in this movie are comparatively likable to the ones in Michael Bay’s later films. I do not think Anthony Ramos’s character of Noah Diaz has as much charisma as Sam Witwicky does, nor is he as likable of a protagonist as him, but Ramos is able to carry the film.
Also in the film is Dean Scott Vazquez as Kris Diaz. His character is so likable that I honestly wanted more of him. Every line out of him is perfect. The main two human leads in this film are Anthony Ramos and Dominque Fishback, who are both good actors. I have nothing against them as performers and I have enjoyed some of their previous work. This movie can keep Anthony Ramos in the lead role for all I care. But having seen some of Dean Scott Vazquez’s smile-inducing charm brought to the table, I kind of wish he was in Dominque Fishback’s spot. Granted, the movie they already crafted makes a lick of sense with Fishback in a greater spotlight, but it would have probably been more fun had Vazquez been there for more of the ride. It would have been a delightful brotherly duo. I got a sense of their chemistry from the beginning and the two actors honestly pair together like chocolate chips and ice cream. I wish I got to see more of that, but what I did see was sweet.
That said, there are plenty of Transformers in this film, including the Maximals in addition to the already commonly showcased Autobots. If you are looking for big screen summer action, look no further. This movie has it. When it comes to spectacle in this franchise, this might be the best that has been brought to the big screen since “Dark of the Moon.”
Speaking of “Transformers,” Noah does get a chance to bond with one in particular, specifically Mirage, played by Pete Davidson. Their chemistry is okay and I like what these two have to go through together, but I have slightly more mixed thoughts on the voice. At times, it blends perfectly with the character, but at other times, all I see is Pete Davidson. I have nothing against Pete Davidson as an actor, as a comedian. I enjoy some of his work on “Saturday Night Live,” “Big Time Adolescence,” “The King of Staten Island,” and as much as I hated “Fast X,” I think his cameo in the movie is one of the miniscule highlights. But my problem with “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” when it comes to not just Pete Davidson as Mirage, but also Michelle Yeoh as Airazor, is that the actors’ voices are recognizable enough to the point where they become a bit distracting. Granted, it is not absurdly bad. Davidson and Yeoh do an okay job with their material, and when it comes to this problem, I do not think it is as blatant and annoying as say “DC League of Super Pets” when it comes to the leads of Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart. But having heard their voices in prior material, it makes me think they are just playing another version of themselves. Instead, I want a character. Live-action roles are a little different where you have the person in the room. I kind of want an escape from that person when they just use their voice sometimes.
Yeoh’s voice is one of a kind, which is both a compliment and a curse. Yeoh is not in the movie a lot, but when she is there, all I see is her sometimes. Thankfully, even though Pete Davidson is in the movie a lot so I pick out his voice more, the admirability of his character makes up for it. He is genuinely charming.
With this in mind, I know this is probably a personal issue that comes from watching some of the prior material from these actors. I imagine a lot of people discovering this film for the first time in the future may find this to be less problematic as other big names rise. Right now as I write this review in 2023, this stands as a flaw based on the events of these times which I have experienced.
Although speaking of voices, Peter Cullen returns as Optimus Prime. And as fantastic as he is here as usual, I picked up some noticeable ruggedness in the character’s voice. Peter Cullen is 81 years old, so obviously his voice is not going to be the exact same as it was years ago. But I wonder if Cullen is getting to the point where he may almost be done with the role. If there is any indication, Chris Hemsworth is going to voice Optimus Prime in an upcoming animation titled “Transformers One.”
The best way to describe “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” would be to compare it to a trip to Burger King. I enjoyed what was on my plate, but it is sometimes inconsistent and I know what I am getting is not of the highest quality. I am not saying “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” was not made with the intention to barely pass, but this is a case where negatives stand out, but the positives stand out just a bit more for me to have a good time. The film looks and sounds great. My theater shook on many occasions and the camerawork is honestly smoother compared to some of the other “Transformers” movies that have come out recently. The special effects are top-notch. The action is spectacular. The characters are fine, but could be better. I think Anthony Ramos as Noah Diaz is a better lead than Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager. The story has its cliches and predictability. But as far as summer blockbusters go, this is a solid entry in this movie season. I think between “Bumblebee” and this latest effort, the franchise is on a decent path. Maybe we will get more like these two along the way. And much like “Burger King,” I may end up coming back to “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” despite its blunders.
In the end, “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is not quite a masterpiece, but far from a disaster. When it comes to big action movies, this is a good choice. I am not going to pretend that I will run down the streets begging for everyone to check it out, but I am glad I saw it. If you are on the fence of seeing this movie, give it a shot. You may not be disappointed. I would put this film in the same boat as “Godzilla vs. Kong.” It is noticeably entertaining as it is flawed. I am going to give “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” a very high 6/10.
“Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new DC movie, “The Flash!” Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “No Hard Feelings,” “Elemental,” “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” and “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Transformers” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“M3GAN” is directed by Gerard Johnstone (The New Legends of Monkey, Terry Teo) and stars Allison Williams (Get Out, Girls), Jenna Davis (Maggie, Raven’s Home), and Violet McGraw (The Haunting of Hill House, Jett). This film centers around a young girl named Cady who loses her parents, is put under the custody of her aunt, but despite finding herself under said guardianship, she does not feel the same as she once did. Not to mention, said aunt is having trouble filling the shoes of her new, unexpected role. That is where M3GAN, an advanced toy doll prototype designed to practically be a child’s best friend, comes in.
When I think about the movie “M3GAN,” it would not be surprising for me to easily jump to conclusions and suggest that this is a gender-swapped version of “Child’s Play.” In some ways, it is. Although as I have said many times on Scene Before, horror is not my strongest genre, therefore I am not entirely familiar with “Child’s Play” and am purely going off of things I have heard. This time, the Chucky doll is a girl, and the child this movie revolves around is a girl as well. The trailer emitted these vibes from the moment I first witnessed it. Sure, there is that one dance routine that M3GAN does that makes her stand out, but I was not sure how a horror movie released in January could not only make its presence known, but worth appreciating. Sure, statistically, horror has been on a roll in recent months, at least for me. But now that we are in January, we are in the time where without exaggeration, movies go to die. If you are not going back to see “Avatar: The Way of Water” or “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” for the first, second, or third time, you are probably going to be watching something that is either deemed less favorable, or something that is still pulling in people for an Oscar nod that came out during the fall.
Thankfully for “M3GAN,” this movie is a delightful surprise. Yes, the trailers make it look like January trash, but it does have some genuine charm throughout that makes it worth the watch. I was shocked and delighted to find out how layered this movie ended up being. From scene one, I ended up caring about the young Cady. I felt terrible for both Cady and her aunt, Gemma, as the two tried to get better acquainted. I have not lost my parents at a young age. I know people who have, and it must be a pain I could never fathom. Nevertheless, this movie manages to capture such a pain with excellence. As for Gemma, a lot of pressure was put on her in a split second. She does not have much experience with children, despite working at a toy company. I not only sympathized with the main character, but the supporting character who is supposed to look after said main character.
As mentioned before, regarding “M3GAN,” an obvious similarity would be “Child’s Play.” But I would also say that another film prominently featuring a technologically advanced toy, “Ron’s Gone Wrong,” would also make for a good comparison. These films have their vast differences. For example, I would not outright recommend “M3GAN” for children, but I think “M3GAN” does a good job at doing something “Ron’s Gone Wrong” tried to do, but in the case of “M3GAN,” the results were more pleasing. To be specific, this film dives into commentary about technology, the toy industry, and how these things can affect one’s social behavior. Children often form attachments to various possessions, and sometimes that can define their life around a certain age. I played a lot of video games when I was younger, so I had an attachment to my various consoles. I would go on vacations and literally take my Xbox 360 with me. This movie reminded me that children will inevitably have obsessions. Heck, every other time I am in a store like GameStop or Target, I will see a child and parent together, and every other time I would hear the child calling out for a toy or something of a similar nature and beg their parent to buy it for them. M3GAN comes off as a toy that could make such a thing happen if it were on display.
In addition to attachment, this movie does a great job at showing how technology tends to replace guardians in many cases. Technology is often used as an escape no matter what age somebody is. However, there comes a point where this movie is a reminder to monitor how often your child is in front of a screen. In M3GAN’s case, it is perhaps a bit more daunting than say my recent Xbox 360 example. Because an Xbox 360 is replaceable. Whether we are talking about more advanced consoles like the Xbox One, or whichever other Xbox 360 already in existence has yet to crap out because of the red ring of death. This movie advertises M3GAN as the one toy a child could ever want for the rest of their life. As a result, it is the one friend they could want too. M3GAN is equipped to do what other people Cady’s age can do and possibly more. Whereas the option is always there to play video games with my friends, M3GAN has the ability to take the actual social component out of anything.
To call “M3GAN” the scariest movie of all time would be a hyperbole beyond hyperboles. I should note, the movie is PG-13, but nevertheless, rather effective. However, I would say the scariest thing about “M3GAN” is something that happens in the movie, and what it made me think about upon leaving it. The most haunting thing about movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey” from 1968, “The Terminator” from 1984, or even more recent films like “Wall-E” from 2008 is that those stories are representative of realities where we could lead ourselves if we are not careful. “M3GAN” is not the scariest horror movie within the past year. The actual scares in the movie are kind of tame compared to say “Smile,” where I was shivering on a regular basis.
That said, the scariest thing about “M3GAN” is that the movie is perhaps representative of not our future, but where we are today. This movie starts off with an advertisement about a toy that is wholly reminiscent of the typical formula of almost any ad found during the daytime on Nickelodeon. If anything, M3GAN is what happens when you put Siri or Alexa inside of an American Girl doll. Heck, the doll even has singing capabilities. What if there is a point where this becomes a franchise and these dolls sell out concerts at Madison Square Garden? M3GAN is literally a smartphone with legs. It presents information in full detail when the moment seems most convenient. It is customized to cater to its primary user. And Cady is endlessly attached to it. Who is not attached to their phone these days?
To give an example of how “M3GAN” is not necessarily representative of our future, but today, let me give you a picture of my screening. This was nowhere near a full house. But the film brought in plenty of people into its small auditorium of ages varying from somewhere in the teens, possibly tweens, to that of a fully grown adult. Almost everyone had their phone out. Some had it out for a second. Some longer. There were moments where people were using their phone while losing focus on the movie. There were also moments where I saw a sea of four, five phones on at a time. In fact, since I do not carry a watch, I checked my phone, which I left in my pocket while doing so, to see the time after the trailers ended because AMC loves advertising everything under the sun. First off, if you are going to go the movies, the only screen that matters is the one the largest one in the room. Be respectful. Second, there is a scene in “M3GAN” that does not specifically target the people doing what they were doing in this theater, but the more I think about my experience, the more I connect it to Cady’s connection to M3GAN in that moment. She loves M3GAN so much that she is unwilling to give it up for even a couple hours for any other activity presented in front of her.
M3GAN is probably not going to end up in my favorite movies of the year list once we arrive at the end, but it probably is going to be one I will think about regularly because of how many connections I can make between the story and my life experiences. I went into M3GAN to see some silly robot take over the lives of a household. I definitely acquired more than that, and for such a reason, this movie was worth the watch.
In the end, “M3GAN” is honestly better than I expected going in. It is a fine mix of drama, comedy, horror, and social commentary. It does a bunch of things at once, and manages to do them well. In addition, it reaffirmed not only why I should be worrisome in regards to the future and how technology could affect it, but also how technology can affect people right now. I left this film worried, and honestly, that is what makes “M3GAN” as effective as it is. I am going to give “M3GAN” a 7/10.
“M3GAN” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my review for “M3GAN.” Check out some of my other reviews for recent horror titles like “Halloween Ends,” “Barbarian,” and “The Mean One.” Also, stay tuned because I will be dropping my thoughts on “Missing,” which I saw before “M3GAN,” but due to being under embargo, I decided to review “M3GAN” first. Stay tuned for my thoughts coming soon! If you want to see all of this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “M3GAN?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a toy or piece of technology you found yourself attached to at some point in your life? Are you still attached today? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 