“Oh, Hi!” is directed by Sophie Brooks and stars Molly Gordon (The Bear, Animal Kingdom), Logan Lerman (Fury, The Hunters), Geraldine Viswanathan (Thunderbolts*, Blockers), and John Reynolds (Search Party, Stranger Things). This film is about a couple who go on their first romantic getaway, only for it to go awry in an unexpected way.
I saw “Oh, Hi!” as part of a double feature. I do not usually partake in double features. In fact, when many people were participating in the infamous “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” trend back in 2023, I saw “Oppenheimer” opening weekend, but waited on “Barbie” for a couple weeks. That said, because of my schedule over one particular weekend, I saw “Oh, Hi!” just minutes after finishing Micahel Shanks’ solid directorial debut “Together.” As I was waiting to watch both movies, I was thinking “Oh, Hi!” could be a nice palette cleanser after some body horror shenanigans, kind of like “Barbie” would have been had I watched it right after “Oppenheimer…” Boy was I wrong.
I often watch movies with my grandma, and this is one I am kind of glad we did not watch together. For the record, the film is quite good. But keep in mind, it is a dark comedy that is probably best watched with, or without, certain people.
I skipped most of the marketing for “Oh, Hi!”, other than catching a random spot on social media every once in a while, so when this film got to the core of the story, I was rather surprised by where it was going. Conceptually, this is a great idea for a movie. The thought of trapping someone to a bed to test romantic compatibility is undoubtedly dark, but the movie handles this narrative with excellence.
This sounds unbelievably stereotypical as a straight white male, but romcoms are not my first choice when it comes to movies. It does not mean they are impossible to enjoy, because “Oh, Hi!” is a blast. It is a romcom worthy of its title. The film is romantic and comedic. I very much felt the spark between its two leads while also having plenty of laughs. This is neither the most romantic or funny movie I have seen, but when it comes to both of those adjectives, I would be lying to say they do not apply to this film. The movie does not hold back on its story either. It is a story that is not only relatable, but does everything to keep you engaged. As the film reached its final ten, fifteen minutes, I was on the edge of my seat.
Much of what makes “Oh, Hi!” work so well is the cast. At the top you have Molly Gordon and Logan Lerman as Iris and Isaac, a completely admirable couple, if you want to call them that. Right below them is Geraldine Viswanathan and John Reynolds as Max (right) and Kenny (left). I was pleasantly surprised to find David Cross make an appearance in the film. He does not play a significant role in the story, but he is charming and funny. In fact, everyone in the film is charming and funny. They all play off each other perfectly. Props to casting, each actor feels well placed in their role.
There is a saying that every story is only as good as its villain. The antagonist of “Oh, Hi!” is by no means evil. There are no world-ending matters in a movie like this.
In fact, while Isaac (left) is most likely “the” antagonist of this film, it does not suggest that Iris (right) is a perfect individual herself. She ends up making some nearly indefensible, dark decisions despite her best intentions. That said, it does not change the fact that both characters are likable.
What makes Isaac in particular likable is his relatability. The film seems to address a common issue that people have in relationships, particularly commitment. The idea of committing to being with someone else for the rest of your life is one of the most daunting decisions you can make. The idea of taking steps in a relationship is scary. The idea of getting married is scary. The idea of being with someone else every day is scary. Nobody knows what the future has in store.
That said, having seen “Oh, Hi!”, I recognize that Isaac is kind of a fool. The way he addresses that he is not looking to be in relationship is so out of the blue to the point where he comes off as a jerk. And if he is not a jerk, he is most certainly stupid. While Isaac is relatable, it is no surprise the script does not always take his side. That said, it is also easy to root for him, especially considering he is tied to a bed for much of the runtime. The movie even points out despite Iris’ best intentions, she is technically kidnapping Isaac. His character is a solid representation of someone who would prefer to keep things casual, and is possibly afraid of taking things to the next level.
Overall, the relationship between Iris and Isaac is beautifully complex. The two seem to like each other and happen to be cute together. But they seem to have different goals in mind. One is in it for the romance, the other seems to be enjoying a short-lived fling. The film may as well be hinting that Isaac cares more about sex than anything else. The two seem to have failed to communicate their wants and needs before taking things further, therefore leading to the movie’s main incident. Either that, or it is possible that Isaac did what he could to impress Iris just to get into bed with her. The movie leaves a little room for interpretation and I appreciate that. If anything that matches the real-life complication of relationships.
Again, the end of this film is fantastic. I think a number of you could predict what happens towards the conclusion as the movie goes along, but it feels earned. The moments leading up to it are sometimes goofy, even for a romantic comedy like this one. But I can forgive it somewhat. If you are looking for a super funny film to watch with a great lead couple, then give “Oh, Hi!” a chance. It deserves some love.
In the end, “Oh, Hi!” came out of nowhere for me, but I ended up loving it. It is a romcom that is by no means disposable. It is a film that made me laugh, and then think. “Oh, Hi!” features an incredible cast of characters, well-written dialogue, and an ending that is truly satisfying. Romcoms are not my genre, but this one in particular stands out to me. I am going to give “Oh, Hi!” an 8/10.
“Oh, Hi!” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Weapons.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Freakier Friday,” “Nobody 2,” and “Honey Don’t!”. 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 “Oh, Hi!”? What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you really enjoyed from a genre you typically could not give two craps about? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Bring Her Back” is directed by Danny and Michael Philippou, the directing duo behind “Talk to Me.” This film stars Billy Barratt (Kraven the Hunter, Responsible Child), Sora Wong, Jonah Wren Phillips (Human Error, How to Make Gravy), and Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water, Paddington). This film centers around Andy and Piper, a brother and sister who are placed under the care of an eccentric woman and find themselves part of a terrifying ritual.
I ended up going to see “Bring Her Back” mainly because of the films that were out in one particular weekend, it piqued my curiosity the most. Note my choice of words. I never said I was looking forward to this film. But I cannot say I was dreading it either. If anything, I was going to see “Bring Her Back” because of my past experience. If I saw any trailers for “Bring Her Back,” they likely flew over my head. That said, I saw “Talk to Me” one time a couple years back. I thought it was a respectable effort by filmmaking brothers Michael and Danny Philippou. While the film had its fans, I cannot say I thought it was perfect. Though I liked it enough to give it a thumbs up. There is a saying that you are only as good as your last project. The Philippou brothers’ last project got me in the door. So, how is their latest outing?
Out-freaking-standing, and I cannot emphasize my enthusiasm enough.
“Bring Her Back” is easily one of the best films of the year. It is a movie that is not quite committed to one genre. I have called it a horror film, and knowing what “Talk to Me” turned out to be, I was kind of expecting “Bring Her Back” to be in the same boat as that movie. While the film is creepy, I will say that one could easily put “Bring Her Back” in the category of psychological thriller. One can simply say it is a drama. Regardless of whatever genre you call it, it handles all of its mini-genres with excellence.
What makes “Bring Her Back” so great is my attachment to the core characters. We come to find out that they all have something in common. Specifically, they are all grieving over someone they lost. While it is traditional for people to grieve over someone’s death, these deaths are unlikely scenarios. For the two younger characters, Andy and Cathy, we see early on in the film that they lose their dad. Shortly after, they meet a new foster parent (Sally Hawkins), whose young daughter died after drowning in a pool. The movie made me feel bad for all three of these people, even if something seems off about one of them.
When these three people first met, it did not take long for me to develop a pit in my stomach. I knew we were in for a ride with Sally Hawkins from the moment I saw her. First off, like some of her previous projects, Hawkins does not phone it in whatsoever when it comes to her performance. She has so much range packed into one character. At one moment she is kind of a creep, then lovable, then flamboyant. Whatever she happens to be as Laura, Hawkins nails it. That said, even when she is those last two adjectives, there is a sense of creepiness to her that remains consistent.
There are some things Hawkins does throughout the runtime that not only made me hate her, but made me want to straight up punch her in the face. She is everything you can want in a solid antagonist. While I will give praise to Hawkins for her performance, I will not deny that her character is sometimes straight up unlikable despite her occasionally having a chill or “cool mom” vibe. And me loathing her is a good thing. All it got me to do is get behind the kids through their journey as it plays out. As wacky as this movie gets at times, I was able to buy into Laura’s motivation. I could see where she was coming from even if I ultimately thought she was a psychotic lunatic.
I would not call this a complaint, but this is more or less something I noticed through my experience of watching the film. Keep in mind, I found “Bring Her Back” to be quite scary. But I cannot say that there are many jaw-dropping individual scares in the film. If anything, I found the film to maintain a consistent eeriness. Going back to how this film balances itself between multiple genres, this is another example to support that case. The scariest part of this film is not any particular scene, but it is the everlasting sense that Laura is going to do something bonkers. And she ends up doing some bonkers things.
Structurally, “Bring Her Back” does not miss a beat. It has a great hook that gets you to care about the two younger kids. You have all the adventures these kids encounter alongside their new foster parent, and as the film gets to the climax, it means business. Again, Sally Hawkins is a fantastic performer. But by the end of the movie I would not have minded seeing her character splatter into bits. There is never a boring moment in this film. The story is captivating. The characters are well written, everything ends on a solid note, and the entire film has a pretty good soundtrack. There are some tunes that slide their way into the film that are perfectly placed.
Sally Hawkins is not the only standout amongst the cast, though she is by far the biggest name. That said, I must give credit to all the younger cast members as well. Billy Barratt does a solid job in the film as Andy. I thought he was on the money when it came to channeling his character’s apprehension in a variety of situations. Jonah Wren Phillips is not given as much to do as Oliver compared to some of the other characters, but what he ends up doing stands out. There is one particular scene in the film that involves him chewing an unusual object that will linger in my mind beyond the end of the year. And lastly, Sora Wong as Piper is adorable. This is Sora Wong’s first role and I am very pleased by how it turned out. I think she is going to have a great career ahead of her. I can totally tell how masterful the Philippou Brothers are as directors based on the efforts of the talent. Each actor feels perfectly in sync with the others around them and not a single performance feels off.
In the end, “Bring Her Back” is top tier filmmaking. I cannot believe we have been blessed with cinema as compelling as this. When I walked out of “Talk to Me,” I did so having had a good time with it. Flash forward a couple years later to “Bring Her Back,” I am genuinely onboard for whatever the Philippous can produce. I keep bringing up Sally Hawkins as a selling point, partially because she is a recognizable name. But everyone else in this film does a great job too. I have to give the entire cast credit for their work. If you like good storytelling, look no further, because I am going to give “Bring Her Back” an 8/10.
“Bring Her Back” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new comedy “Friendship.” I have been looking forward to seeing and talking about this movie. And I finally get to discuss it in the coming days. Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” 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 “Bring Her Back?” What did you think about it? Or, which film did you like better? “Talk to Me” or “Bring Her Back?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Penguin Lessons” is directed by Peter Cattaneo (The Full Monty, Military Wives) and stars Steve Coogan (Night at the Museum, Philomena), Jonathan Pryce (The Two Popes, Brazil), Vivian El Jaber (Guapas, Cha Cha Cha), and Björn Gustafsson (People of Earth, Parlamentet). This film is about an Englishman living in 1970s Argentina who rescues and looks after an orphaned penguin.
One of the coolest things about going to the movies is getting to experience something with other people. “The Penguin Lessons” is the latest example of one of those events. Partially because this is a film I would have probably waited a bit before going to see by myself. Granted, the trailer, for the few times I saw it, won me over, but this was not my kind of movie. I picked this movie to watch with a couple other people, particularly my mom and grandma, as an equalizer. I thought it would be something we would all agree on.
Thankfully, the decision to watch this film was a wise one. “The Penguin Lessons” is one of the most adorable films I have seen in a long time. I am the furthest thing from a pet person, but even I was captivated by the connection between our film’s protagonist, Tom, and a penguin who eventually winds up going by the name Juan Salvador. The film itself follows a predictable path, where you have a guy who could care less about owning a penguin, he is essentially obligated to take care of it, and he ends up forming an unlikely bond with it. Although the film is much more than that. It is a look into a tragic time for Argentina, where its people were noticeably divided and under dictatorship rule.
In some cases, the penguin in this film seems to serve as an escape from the troubles Argentina’s people were experiencing at this time. We see him not only as Tom Michell’s pet, but also as a reward for his class. There is a scene where we see the class spiraling into chaos, and to calm him down, Michell goes into his nearby home, grabs the penguin, and walks into class with it. Having had time to think about this movie, I probably would have had a much different reaction to this scene if Michell suddenly brought in a dog or a cat, considering a decent number of people are allergic to them. That said, in fairness, there are not as many known records of people having penguin allergies. It is nice to see this group of students experience a moment of comfort and joy in what is clearly a tense time. Some of these boys may be immature or part of the problem, but we see them lighten up a bit because of this one animal.
Some of the best films have something to say about what it means to be human. At certain points, “The Penguin Lessons” is not afraid to show the worst of humanity, as this film is set in an Argentinian dictatorship where anyone on the street can be captured. “The Penguin Lessons” reminds me of humanity’s unique connection to other creatures. We do not just bond with our own kind, but also many others. In fact, the penguin in this film sometimes shows it is easier for certain people to step up for another animal than it is for them to step up for another human being, even if they see another human being in serious danger. In some cases, that may be because we do not want to risk our own lives, partially to the blame of, unfortunately, other humans.
The film may be set during a dark, gritty time, but it manages to pack plenty of joy and levity into just about every other scene. If you are looking to escape from the problems of the real world, this movie surprisingly works, despite also presenting a world with prominent problems of its own. The first 30 minutes of this film, especially when we first see our protagonist and the penguin in the same place, is sometimes laugh out loud funny. There is a line, I will not say what it is, but you will know it when you hear it, that Tom says twice in a span of several minutes, and I was almost rolling on the floor. It is not so much the line itself that is funny as much as it is the delivery. There are moments where Tom finds out what it is like to clean up bird poop, but much to my delight, the film does not treat it so much like a gag.
This film is directed by Peter Cattaneo, who was previously nominated for a Best Director Oscar for “The Full Monty.” With “The Penguin Lessons” being a 2024 release to some degree and having its wide release this early in 2025, I do not know if Cattaneo is going to get another nomination, but if the Oscars were tomorrow, his presence amongst the nominees would be debatable. Between his perfect balance of comedy and drama, as well as the timing connected to both of those genres, Cattaneo knows exactly what he is doing.
Another reason why Cattaneo knows what he is doing shows through the performances. This film is led by Steve Coogan, who I have seen in a number of films before. But I am not going to lie, I had no idea who the lead was for this film going in,. As I was watching, I thought, much to my embarrassment down the line, that I was looking at Hugh Grant. The two actors have their aesthetic individualities, but for whatever reason they do look surprisingly similar. Steve Coogan in this film sort of reminds me of a Hugh Grant type. His character, Tom, is reserved and comes off as if he is stuck in his ways. Yet at the same time, if you get to know him, you will realize he is a wholesome person. While Tom may seem like a grump on occasion, he stands firmly alongside Juan Salvador the penguin as the film’s heart and soul.
The film clearly establishes Tom’s lack of enthusiasm for keeping a penguin from the getgo, but never once did I think he was a jerk. Heck, if someone randomly handed me a penguin, I would probably resist the idea of keeping it too. But this film shows the fascinating journey of what happens when you choose to keep a pet you never wanted, and how taking on such a responsibility can be rewarding.
In the end, “The Penguin Lessons” is a well-paced, well-written delight. If you are looking for a film that focuses on Argentinian history, it might be for you, but you may also want to look elsewhere. Ultimately, this is an adorable story about a man and his penguin. If that is what you signed up for, you will be satisfied. Steve Coogan gives a heck of a performance. It is still early, but I will be interested to see what other portrayals could top it throughout the year. I highly recommend “The Penguin Lessons,” and I am going to give it an 8/10.
“The Penguin Lessons” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you have been paying attention to my recent posts, you may have noticed my last couple have focused heavily on game shows. If you have not yet checked them out, be sure to read my thoughts on “The Luckiest Man in America,” the new movie based on a couple of infamous “Press Your Luck” episodes, as well as my thoughts going into the upcoming season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” If you want to see posts like these 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 Penguin Lessons?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie involving penguins? I’ll even accept “Batman Returns.” That movie is sick. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! I said in some recent posts that I am somewhat behind on my movie reviews. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be changing, because today I am going to be talking about a passion of mine I do not often get to discuss on Scene Before, game shows.
Today we are going to be talking about the upcoming season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, and just how peeved I am by the current state of it. But before we get to why that is the case, I want to give some background on my relationship with this show.
As a game show fan, I have grown up watching “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” in the U.S. and have sometimes gone online to find variants of the show in other countries, including the original in Britain, and watch those as well. If I had to name a favorite game show format of all time, it would easily be “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”. In fact, I say that as someone who has not had the best luck with the show as a fan over the years. For one thing, I was born in 1999. So I was never conscious enough to truly experience Regis Philbin’s run on the U.S. version. I felt the changes later made to the show on syndication such as the eliminated lifelines, the eradication of the hot seat, as well as the lackluster music they decided to go with from 2010 to 2019 made for a product that I felt was significantly inferior to what the show had before.
Then came 2020, it was announced the show would come back to primetime. Good. They also announced there would be a hot seat. Good. They also brought the back the original music. Good. They also announced it would be a celebrity exclusive season. Okay… I mean… It is not ideal, but I will let it slide this one time.
Nevertheless, the fanboy in me was excited. I was truly bouncing off the walls. They even picked a decent host in Jimmy Kimmel, who I enjoy through his late night talk show, as well has his then recent gigs at the Oscars. I even reserved seats in the audience to see the first taping of the show in Los Angeles.
Then COVID-19 happened and nothing was ever the same.
Long story short, I got two free tickets for my mom and I. We got a flight to LAX. We got a hotel in Beverly Hills. All is fine and dandy. Then things start shutting down, and hours after we land and get to the hotel, I get a message from the ticket provider saying that the taping has been cancelled. I basically flew to Los Angeles for pure disappointment.
So what happens next? The show tapes its all celebrity season without an audience, and I have to say, despite some occasional bumps in the road in terms of the rules and question difficulty, it was a really good season. I had a ball watching the show return to its roots, and Jimmy Kimmel did a good job with hosting. The show did well with ratings, and it returned later that year. This time around, celebrities were still playing, but they also brought in some essential workers. It was a respectable balance of famous and not so famous players. A lot of those players across the board appeared to do very well with their individual games and they were all fun to watch. Though if I had one weakness, I think Jimmy Kimmel does a lot better communicating one on one with celebrities than he does the regular contestants. It could be attributed to his experience in late night television. He knows a lot of these people, and in some ways, a lot of the back and forth delivered a vibe that was similar to talk show banter. That is my one big gripe with the season I came to realize. If I had another one, it is the guaranteed minimum of $32 thousand given to each contestant. Essentially that means, no matter what, everyone leaves as if they successfully answered the 10th question of 15. It makes the game somewhat less engaging. Though the money is for good causes and for people who probably need it, so it is nice seeing the money going somewhere where it is needed.
Then a couple years go by where the show is essentially on hold, until it makes its triumphant return in 2024 for its 25th anniversary. Despite the special title, there was not much of a reason for me to get excited about it, as the program was showcasing all celebrity contestants again. And not just one, but two celebrities were playing each game! I was disappointed, but I was still onboard because it is still better than no “Millionaire” at all. Plus, the audience was back! And so was the Ask the Audience lifeline! Finally! Unfortunately, I was not a part of the audience like I would have been in 2020.
Then we get to this year… Just kill me.
Assuming we only get one season this year, the 2025 season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is going to be the exact same format as the 2024 season. All celebrities, with two contestants per game. When will this end?
I love the “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” format, but it does not change the fact that the people running it do not know what to do with it. If anything, them bringing the show back this year, and perhaps also the year before, comes off as an obligation. I do not have a lot of time for television as I watch so many movies, but game shows have always been some kind of exception. “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is a great idea for a show, and if done right, it is exceptional. This season feels underwhelming based on what I have read so far. I have no problem with Jimmy Kimmel coming back. He is a good host. I think when it comes to suspense, I think he does a better job with that compared to Regis Philbin. For the record, I think Regis Philbin is the superior host, but Kimmel holds his own. He is funny, he has good delivery with the prompter lines, and he times himself well with what the contestants have to say. Do I think there are people who I would rather see have a chance at hosting? Perhaps. If I had a few desired picks, I would go with Levar Burton from “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” Taylor Tomlinson from CBS’s “After Midnight,” or heck, let’s throw Howie Mandel in there as well. I liked him on “Deal or No Deal.” Or even bring back one of the older hosts! I have a soft spot for Meredith Vieira. I think she did a fantastic job during her run. Jimmy Kimmel is a fine choice though, I dig him. So that is one positive with this renewal.
Now onto the negatives. This show is becoming increasingly dumbed down. I understand the need to dumb things down during the 2020 seasons with the standby experts each contestant brought in. Many of the players were giving money to charity, and there was also an ongoing health crisis. While we still have people playing for charity in this upcoming season, I will not deny that we are at a point where it sounds like the people making this show are intentionally making it as insultingly easy as they can. I do not know what the questions will be. I will note, there have been a few million dollar questions over the past 5 years on this show, and all of them were actually quite difficult. I had trouble figuring them out myself. But regardless of what questions the contestants end up getting, the journey to get to that million dollar question is inevitably going to be less exciting.
I would have no problem with two people playing at the same time if it were a special occasion during a long season. It has been done before. There have been Couples Editions of the show when Regis Philbin was hosting. I also have no problem with bringing in a second player to help out. On top of the expert in the shadows that assisted the contestant during the 2020 season, there have been lifelines on the show that involved back and forth communication between two people like Phone a Friend, Ask the Expert, and Plus One. But those lifelines only help the contestants for a certain window of time. When you have two players answering questions simultaneously for the entire game, you basically have a permanent lifeline. On top of that, if this season is going to be like the last one, then chances are some of the lifelines are going to be Phone a Friend, which again, involves communication between multiple people… Ask the Host, where Jimmy Kimmel tells the contestant what he thinks, or knows, the answer is… And Ask the Audience, where a bunch of people with keypads give away what they think the answer is.
When making a game show with a million dollar top prize, it should have the feeling of high stakes, tremendous pressure, and utter intensity. “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” has mastered that through many of its past seasons. But the way things seem to be laid out for the current iteration of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” feels smaller and less exciting. In fact, it sometimes feels scripted. If you watched “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, even in the daytime, you would notice that not every show starts with a contestant playing their first question. They could be on the second, third, maybe even the 15th. If you watched the last season, every episode was the same. You had two contestants playing at once during the show’s initial half. And for the second half, another duo would take their place. It gets repetitive after awhile. I have no idea what the tapings were like. I have to imagine some significant editing must have taken place to allow each pair of contestants to fill the hour without going over or under. But even if any of these contestants’ runs were authentic, it made “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” feel more predictable than it has ever been. Predictable is probably the last adjective I would want to use to describe this show. The beauty of “Millionaire,” as well as just about every other game show in existence, is that it does not follow a script. Sure, there are some lines the host has to say. Sure, there is a format that is often followed. Sure, many games are played so they can easily be completed in one episode. But the contestants fill in the gaps. While the pairs of contestants from the previous “Millionaire” season may have filled those gaps, the show sometimes felt rushed or unfinished.
I remember watching some episodes of “Who Wants to Be a Millioniare?” in the United States as well as other countries, and when some people win the million dollars, the host will take time to talk with them, congratulate them, and let the audience breathe. That kind of communication did not happen every single time, but even when it did not, the show still gave a moment for everyone in the room to celebrate. I think this is a moment best exemplified by last season, when contestant duo Ike and Alan Barinholtz won the top prize. Unfortunately, there was not much Jimmy Kimmel could do to build up the million dollar win because the contestants used the Ask the Host lifeline. When that lifeline is used and a contestant locks an answer in, Jimmy must let the computer “reveal the correct answer.” The answer turns green, the contestants lose their mind, and so do Jimmy and the audience. Confetti shoots out, Jimmy acknowledges the win, and suddenly, the show is over. Maybe that is how things were when this specific portion of the show was being taped. But as a viewer, I would have liked to have maybe digested the moment a little more. Maybe once the music stops, you could hear the audience cheering, or we could get to know a little more about the duo’s charity and what this money means to them. I feel something was missing here. Yes, I know what I am saying sounds scripted. But come on. Would you rather see these celebrities take the money and run? Or would you want to take a moment to celebrate the win with them? It is not like this kind of thing has not happened in recent years.
Heck, during Jimmy Kimmel’s second season, that actually happened when celebrity contestant David Chang won! The player became the first celebrity in history to win the million, which was acknowledged on air. He and Jimmy celebrated with elbow bumps. The sideline expert joined in. They paused for a moment to breathe, and then they sit down and discuss how everyone felt in the moment. They even took time to call David Chang’s phone a friend, ESPN’s Mina Kimes, to bring her in on the celebration. In fact, you can see this for yourself in the full episode, which as of this post’s publication, you can watch on YouTube. The million dollar question begins around the 17 minute mark. You’re welcome.
Fast forward to the Barinholtz duo, Jimmy simply hands the check and the show is over. I was thrilled they won. Very thrilled, actually. I did not know much about his father, Alan, but deep down I knew Ike Barinholtz could make it to the end because I had the privilege of also watching him on “Celebrity Jeopardy!”, where he also did very well, and not just by celebrity standards. I just wish “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” could have celebrated an achievement as unbelievable as this with a little more pizzazz. In film speak, it is like if a movie wins Best Picture at the Oscars, but they do not let anyone give an acceptance speech. Again, if you want proof, the full episode is available on YouTube as of this post’s publication. The million dollar question begins around the 38 minute mark. Once again, you’re welcome.
I know during Regis Philbin’s time on the show, the contestants who won the million, or in Ed Toutant and Kevin Olmstead’s cases, anywhere between $1.86 million to $2.18 million, would also be given a check and shortly leave after. But that is supplemented with a bit of a breather where the music dies down. Maybe they celebrate with someone they know, or they get a thunderous response from the audience, perhaps even the people working behind the scenes.
I love some of the changes that have been made to the U.S. version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” in recent years. Jimmy Kimmel is a fine addition to the show. I appreciate the production going back to its roots with the hot seat and the original music. Those are two of my favorite production elements in any project I ever watched, and not just game shows. The current set, which was inspired by the latest one used in the United Kingdom, is spectacular. Ask the Host is also not a bad lifeline. It shows that the host does not always have the answers. They do not make the questions. They are just providing them.
Although if I must be honest, as great of a format as “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is, this current edition of it needs improvement. I am not necessarily suggesting for it to air multiple nights a week. But there needs to be a prioritization of regular contestants. I am not going to pretend I know how much money every celebrity contestant has in their bank accounts. Although if the game is called “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” it is much less inspiring and captivating to know that a lot of the contestants playing the game are already rich and famous. You think John Mulaney WANTS to be a MILLIONAIRE? No! His net worth is somewhere in the tens of millions! At this point, I would think he wants to be a NEPTILLIONAIRE! Yes, I know Mulaney, and other celebrity contestants, are playing for charity. But in all seriousness, why not let a regular Joe try for a million? Game shows are built to let people potentially win big, make it rich. People dream of going on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”. While it may not be the pinnacle of trivia programs that “Jeopardy!” seems to be at this point, it has become a staple in game show history. Why not let some average people live out that dream?!
The beauty of watching “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” when it started was the potential of it making someone an overnight sensation. NO ONE could have predicted John Carpenter, an IRS officer from Connecticut, making it to the million dollar question with all of his lifelines, reading the question, finally using his phone a friend to call his dad, only to tell him that he does not need his help because he is going to the win the million dollars, which of course, he did, because the answer was “Richard Nixon.” That is must see TV.
You might be questioning me right now. After all, I did say earlier that I think Jimmy Kimmel does a better job communicating with celebrity contestants than he does with regular ones. That has been established. But it does not mean he lacks potential. It is not like he only communicates with celebrities. In fact, he spent some time on another game show with some non-celebrity contestants through “Win Ben Stein’s Money.” He has showcased some solid hosting skills on that show and I think he has the potential to do the same on “Millionaire?” should they bring back non-celebrity contestants there too.
I am going to let the crew behind this season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” have their fun. Maybe I will watch the show. Maybe I will not. Who knows at this point?… But this format is slowly losing its flair. Make it an event. Make it engaging. Introduce the viewers to some nobodies who could potentially become somebody. Let some regular people phone a friend instead of letting Jimmy Kimmel have an excuse to talk to his friends. He already has “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for that. I want this show to do better, and that, is my final answer.
Thanks for reading this post! Interesting enough, this is not the only game show-related post you will see on this blog in a matter of days. Because if you are curious to know what my next review will be, it is “The Luckiest Man in America.” For those not aware, that movie is based on the events of the infamous “Press Your Luck” episode featuring Michael Larson. I was really looking forward to checking out that film. I hope you all are looking forward to reading my review of it. If you enjoyed this post and want to see more like it, follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, are you looking forward to the upcoming season of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”. Am I an idiot for making this post? Please tell me in the comments, I assure you I do read them. What are your thoughts on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” as a show? Do you like it? Dislike it? Leave your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“I’m Still Here” is directed by Walter Salles (Central Station, The Motorcycle Diaries) and stars Fernanda Torres (Love Me Forever or Never, The House of Sand), Selton Mello (A Dog’s Will, Lisbela and the Prisoner), and Fernanda Montenegro (Sweet Mother, Central Station). This film is based on a memoir of the same name and is about a mother who deals with the forced disappearance of her husband, former politician Rubens Paiva, who opposed Brazil’s military dictatorship.
In an effort to catch all of this year’s Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, I had to find a way to check “I’m Still Here” off my list. One key difference when it comes to this nominee in particular compared to say “Anora” or “Wicked” or “Dune: Part Two” is that I went into this film knowing nothing about it. All that I really knew was that it was a Brazilian movie, the characters speak Portuguese, and it was getting a lot of critical acclaim. I went in completely blind, having barely come across as much as a poster. Safe to say, I did not know what to expect.
Thankfully, I came out of this movie feeling satisfied.
“I’m Still Here” is not an easy watch. Some of my audience might think I say such a thing because this is a film not made in the United States or a film where English is not the primary language used in the dialogue.. That is not my point. Though I can see why those two things could turn some people off upon a first impression. Instead, this film deals with a serious subject matter that I imagine would be tough for some viewers. The film is dramatic, yet grounded at the same time. It is perfectly balanced in its attempt to be both an inviting slice of life story and an engaging political thriller. The film is like life itself. It has its happy moments. It has its sad moments. And in the long run, it is worth seeking out.
One of my favorite things about this film is how it handles the importance of family, especially when you consider the protagonist’s point of view, as well as the many obstacles she must face just to be with them, or do what is best for them. We see her trying to protect them under their respective political landscape, as well as do anything and everything she can to uncover her husband’s whereabouts. The film shows what it means to stay connected even in the darkest of times.
The family itself is well written and decently cast. There is not a single person on the lineup I found to be out of place, and I thought everyone’s personality shone through. Honestly, the entire cast of the film serves their purpose and does a good job. I cannot name a bad apple on the tree. But Fernanda Torres is on another level with her performance here.
There is a reason why Fernanda Torres was nominated for an Academy Award. She is the film’s soul and I cannot see anyone else playing her. Every moment, every line, every facial expression, she sold me. Torres is commanding in every scene. The movie gives her a lot to do and she handles all of her material very well. I have been doing some research online to see what everyone is saying about this film, and just about every other person I am coming across is losing their mind over Torres. I may not be adding anything new to the conversation that has not already been said, but she is easily the best part of the movie.
This film is based on true events. On that note, the story features real life politician Rubens Paiva (left). I do not know a ton about the real events that inspired this film, but I did some research on Paiva following the film and I have to say kudos to whoever cast Selton Mello, because he looks the part. Granted, acting ability is arguably more important, and thankfully, he has that in spades.
One of the reasons why I have come to realize “I’m Still Here” has some of the best collective acting in 2024 cinema is likely because of the way the film was shot. If you know how movie productions tend to work, not every project is shot in chronological order. “I’m Still Here” is an exception to the rule. I think this move paid off, because it allowed the talent to experience the sense of immersion in their story that viewers like I did while watching it unfold.
On that note, “I’m Still Here” is quite an immersive movie. “I’m Still Here” has more in common with a slice of life tale than a large scale epic, but the movie sometimes feels as large as life itself. Whether I was at a family gathering, the beach, or the inside of a home, I felt like I was a part of this film’s world. Such a sentiment is also true for a prison, which does not emit the most pleasant feeling, but every scene in this film, like it or not, had a sense of verisimilitude. The film takes time to showcase the beauty of life, but also keeps things real by reminding people of the extreme obstacles our characters constantly encounter.
At times, this movie is the definition of the idea that life goes on. An integral part of your life may cease to exist, but as long as you are still around, it is up to you to decide how to navigate things going forward. You could remember your past, run from it, choose to reinvent yourself. Sometimes that integral part may leave you in a literal sense, but deep down, it will always be with you.
The movie ends on a satisfying note. The final scene is exquisitely acted and well directed. It also goes to show the power of silence. Filmmaking is a visual medium, and any opportunity that can be taken to let the visuals do the talking allows for great scenes like this one. I will leave the details undisclosed for now and let you see the proper craftsmanship for yourself.
In the end, “I’m Still Here” was kind of a last minute purchase for me. I probably would not have seen this film if it were not for the word of mouth it racked up during this awards season. And I am happy to have added to it. This film is full of great performances, gripping scenes, and solid chemistry amongst its cast. Of course, Fernanda Torres is the standout, but the supporting actors also add quite a bit to the final product. It is not an easy watch, but I think if you can handle the material, this movie could be worth your time. I am going to give “I’m Still Here” a 7/10.
“I’m Still Here” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! I have reviews on the way for “Riff Raff,” “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” and “Locked.” Stay tuned!
And coming on March 30th, look forward to the 7th Annual Jack Awards! The most important awards show in the history of movie blogs! Why? Because I said so! This is a reminder that you have the power to vote for this year’s Best Picture! You can do so by clicking this link and choosing one of the ten nominees. And click this link if you want to know what films are nominated for this year’s ceremony! Unfortunately, “I’m Still Here” was not nominated for any awards this year, but if I were to add a sixth candidate for Best Actress, Fernanda Torres would probably earn that spot. It was a very close call. But rules are rules. I did see this movie before announcing the nominations last week, but Torres’ honestly goes to show how great acting has been across the board for several performers over the past year. If you want to see this upcoming show 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’m Still Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the saddest film you saw in the past year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Paddington in Peru” is directed by Dougal Wilson and this is his feature film debut. The film stars Hugh Bonneville (The Monuments Men, Downton Abbey), Emily Mortimer (The Pink Panther, The Newsroom), Julie Waters (Mamma Mia!, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone), Jim Broadbent (Bridget Jones’s Diary, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), Carla Tous (30 Coins, El hombre del saco), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), Antonio Banderas (Shrek 2, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), and Ben Whislaw (Skyfall, Fargo). This film is the third installment to the “Paddington” film franchise, where Ben Whislaw once again voices the title character. The film dives into Paddington’s adventurous journey to reunite with his Aunt Lucy, who now lives at the home for retired bears in Peru.
Two similar phrases I notice myself use sometimes as a film fan are “better than it should be” or “better than it has any right being.” Those two phrases very much apply to the current “Paddington” movies. Sure, these movies might appeal to kids, but just like I often say about Pixar titles, they are presented in such a way where they also have a lot for adults to enjoy. I watched both “Paddington” titles leading up to this one earlier this year. I have heard nothing but good things about both, and boy do they live up to the hype. Ben Whislaw adorably voices the lead role. The rest of the cast has perfect chemistry and all play their parts well. The atmosphere of these films do a great job at adding an enhanced otherworldliness to real life locations. The films somehow get you to buy that an animated bear lives with a large human family.
That said, I did maintain a notable nerve with “Paddington in Peru.” The director of the past couple movies, Paul King, is not in the chair this time around. Dougal Wilson is helming this project instead. As someone who is sometimes resistant to change, it was something lingering in my mind upon this film’s release. Thankfully, my nerves were rid of by the time the film got into gear because this film maintains the tone, atmosphere, and therapeutic nature of the previous “Paddington” installments. I did not know this was Wilson’s first film. But having seen it, I would love to see more from work from him. Heck, if he wanted to do a sequel to this movie, I would not be against it.
Is “Paddington in Peru” as good as the Paul King installments? No. It is a step down. But it is a step down in the same way that I see “Inside Out 2” as a step down from its predecessor. “Inside Out” is so masterfully made that whatever came after it had big shoes to fill. While “Inside Out 2” was good, it was nowhere near the level of the original. In fact, one similarity I will note between these sequels is that these latest films do not pack as much emotional weight as their predecessors. I will forever cherish the ending to “Paddington 2.” It has become a new favorite of mine because not only is it earned, but it almost broke me. There is nothing in this film as emotionally charging as that scene. This does not mean the film itself lacks emotion, it just does not have as much.
In addition to emotion, the film has laughs and adventure. This is a great watch for the entire family, but also maintains a balance between being overly mature and overly childish. Pardon the incoming bear pun, but when it comes to finding a balance for all audiences. The film is “just right.”
“Paddington in Peru” is a solid trilogy capper that understands its characters, its vibes, and successfully progresses the universe into a direction that is bigger than what came before. Bigger does not necessarily mean better in this case, but this film in terms of scope, sometimes feels more epic than the last two. At times, the film has an “Indiana Jones” feel. Not only because of the adventurous structure, but also likely because the film mainly takes place in the jungle. As a bonus, there is a scene involving a giant boulder.
One of the most crucial aspects many movies must balance is a sense of realism combined with suspension of disbelief. The “Paddington” movies do a great job at this, and this one is no exception. One example of this involves Olivia Colman’s character, the Reverend Mother, a happy go lucky, singing, guitar-playing nun who lives in the middle of the Peruvian Jungle. Unsurprisingly, Colman kills it here. She is so dynamic and hyperactive to the point where every scene of hers is a highlight. She makes you believe that someone as over the top like her can exist in a world much like ours.
Going back to what I said about change, turns out the director was not the only change behind the scenes. While Mary Brown (right) from the previous movies does return here, Sally Hawkins has been replaced with another actor, Emily Mortimer. While watching the film, I did not know Hawkins was replaced, but when I look at the two actors side by side I could barely see a difference. Mortimer maintains the welcoming, calm feel Hawkins previously brought to the role and gives a solid performance in her own right. I would love to watch all three of these movies back to back one day and see how these two performances compare as a whole. Although upon my first impression, I have no complaints regarding Emily Mortimer’s portrayal of Mary Brown.
That said, Hugh Bonneville does come back as Henry Brown (right center), and while I think his presence here is probably the weakest of the three movies, I still think Bonneville himself plays the role nicely. I am glad to see him come back. The film tends to dive into Henry’s risk aversion. I thought that was handled well and brought a decent load of conflict into the character’s path.
I see this franchise in the same way that I see some of my favorite sitcoms like “Seinfeld” or “The Big Bang Theory.” Story is arguably the most important aspect of any movie. But even if the story comes off as an afterthought, which for the record, it does not here, I would keep coming back to the “Paddington” movies just to hang out with the characters. Paddington himself is a bundle of joy. The supporting human characters are all likable. The antagonistic roles in this film are some of the best parts of the movie. I would watch a fourth “Paddington” film just to see where these characters go next. If you are under a lot of stress or you want to forget about the troubles of the world, the “Paddington” movies, including this one, are a solid option to pass the time.
The film also looks beautiful. This should not come as a major surprise considering a lot of it takes place in the Peruvian jungle, but the color palette, much like the last two films, has this slight homey gloss to it. Many of the river shots, the tree shots, and anything else related to the jungle environment are pleasing to the eyes. Erik Wilson, who shot the last two “Paddington” movies, comes back to shoot this one, and he follows up those two with another gorgeously framed spectacle.
Also, when the credits roll, do not get out of your chair. There is an extra scene. If you are familiar with these movies, it is a nice little addition that would be worth your time.
In the end, “Paddington in Peru” is the worst of the “Paddington” movies. But like the “Toy Story” franchise, even the weakest film, in my case the fourth one, is worth a watch. The film is a fine-looking, exquisitely presented, well-oiled machine of happiness. Feeling down? Watch this movie. I am not a doctor, but I watch a lot of movies. This is simply my professional advice. The film has the vibe of a glorified Saturday morning cartoon that also feels down to earth. I am looking forward to seeing what Dougal Wilson does next as a director. If “Paddington” continues, I will go to the cinema to support it. The franchise is 3 for 3 so far. I am going to give “Paddington in Peru” a 7/10.
“Paddington in Peru” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Love Hurts,” “The Brutalist,” and “I’m Still Here.” 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 “Paddington in Peru?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Paddington” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“One of Them Days” is directed by Lawrence Lamont and this is his first feature film. The movie stars Keke Palmer (Nope, Lightyear), SZA, and Katt Williams (Scary Movie 5, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore). This film is about two roommates who must do anything and everything they can so they can pay their rent and continue living in their apartment.
As a moviegoer, I wholeheartedly welcome “One of Them Days” as a concept alone. With the growth of streaming and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the moviegoing space is in a dire need for more straight-up comedies. While not every comedy lands with me, it is a preferred genre of mine. These kinds of movies are fairly digestible and fun, even if they sometimes feel repetitive or try too hard to be over the top and raunchy just for the sake of being raunchy. That said, I was a little skeptical watching the marketing for “One of Them Days” each time it came on. At best, I found what was in front of me to be mildly funny. Thankfully, the movie itself has more than a few laughs. This film released in January, and as far as January movies go, this is quite good. It is hard to know if I will remember this film by the end of the year, but this is a movie that if I had my way, I could experience it in a sold out setting because I think it has enough decent humor to get an entire room cracking up.
If I had to choose my favorite things about “One of Them Days,” a few immediately come to mind. For starters, the pace of this film never slows down. The film is kind of like “Saturday Night” in a sense. It constantly reminds the audience of how much time our characters have left before certain doom. I would say this is probably less anxiety-inducing than “Saturday Night” though as our characters start their journey off with more time to waste. But the movie still has a looming countdown to something that could potentially change the course of our characters’ lives.
Another standout element that comes to mind? The actors. Everyone on screen genuinely looks like they are having a good time making something that could be considered mindless. While the film may look and sound mindless on its surface, it nevertheless does a good job at getting me to care about the characters as they deal with their problems. Keke Palmer and SZA play Dreux and Alyssa. The two are fairly grounded characters who also bridge a gap to where they match the film’s hyperactive, almost animated vibe. This is the latest film in which I have seen Keke Palmer, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite on-screen personalities. On top of her movies, I think she is a solid game show host as well on NBC’s “Password.” This film continues to prove why I want to see more work from her. As for SZA, I do not know enough about her, but this film definitely makes me want to know more.
I saw this movie with my mom, and we both agreed upon walking out that it is silly and ridiculous. In a way, one can say my expectations were met. But if you go on the Wikipedia page for “One of Them Days,” it says the film is in the “tragicomedy buddy” genre. In reality, I would say most, if not all comedy, comes from tragedy, hence the phrase “comedy equals tragedy plus time.” But sticking with the idea of tragedy, I also think this movie does a great job at interjecting drama, and none of it feels forced or tacked on. The main plot involving the rent money is one thing, but there is also a subplot where we see Dreux trying to get a job she has been working towards, and I felt the stakes as this subplot was unfolding. There is a great interview sequence where I cannot help but root for the character. There is so much more to this scene than one could expect. In fact, “more” is a word that could heavily apply to my experience watching this movie. This movie keeps putting more, and more, and more high stakes material into its narrative to the point where you continue to worry that the main duo will fail at accomplishing their goals.
While “One of Them Days” is not my favorite screenplay of all time, I will not deny that it is structured quite nicely. This movie keeps building one problematic scenario for our main duo after another, with each one as engaging as the last. At one moment, they are dealing with their rent money. At another, one of them is dealing with their career. At another, they are dealing with their literal lives. I do not think “One of Them Days” is perfect considering how I do not remember all the character’s names. Also, execution-wise, some of the dialogue was delivered in such a way where I could not digest all of it. While the film’s replay value is not as high for me as others, I think “One of Them Days” is not only worth watching again just for fun, but I think the film would absolutely benefit from a rewatch in case there are any jokes or lines I missed the first time around.
“One of Them Days” also delivers a surprisingly thrilling climax. For what I previously referred to as a straight-up comedy, this film is at times, rather deep. And it shows here. Because the film resolves itself in a way where everything makes sense, everything binds together, but it leaves our characters in positions that I may not have seen coming from the movie’s earliest moments. And on top of that, I would imagine the characters themselves happen to feel the same way.
I am not going to pretend that I am watching “One of Them Days” for the visual effects, but if I had one nitpick about the film, I will say that there is a scene where one character gets electrocuted and throughout the process, we see the most fake-looking, obviously CGI-ed electricity that could have possibly been brought to screen. Despite that, this movie is often grounded to the point where you buy the scenarios, even if they are a bit over the top. There are also moments that almost cross a line to where if they happened in real life, it would leave one responding to the moment saying, “You can’t make this stuff up!”. This film feels real because not only does it have relatable characters, but it does a good job at putting you in the mindsets of these characters to the point where you too are bewildered by the actions of other people.
In the end, “One of Them Days” definitely lives up to its title. It is crazy, briskly paced, and refuses to let its characters, and therefore the audience, breathe. Sometimes it is so bonkers to the point of potential convolution, but the movie also has enough laughs in it to make up for that. Keke Palmer and SZA are a fine leading duo. I thought their roles were well cast. Also, I have to shout out Rizi Timane, who is also a highlight as Uche the landlord. Same goes with Maude Apatow as Bethany, I thought she was adorably charismatic. I have seen better movies, not to mention better comedies, but “One of Them Days” is a good time at the movies and I am going to give it a 7/10.
“One of Them Days” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new MCU installment, “Captain America: Brave New World.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “One of Them Days?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite comedy of the decade so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Kraven the Hunter” is directed by J.C. Chandor (A Most Violent Year, Margin Call) and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Avengers: Age of Ultron), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), Fred Hechinger (The White Lotus, Gladiator II), Alessandro Nivola (Amsterdam, Jurassic Park III), Christopher Abbott (Girls, The Sinner), and Russell Crowe (Thor: Love and Thunder, Gladiator). This film is about Sergei Kravinoff, AKA Kraven the Hunter, and explores his complex relationship with his father in addition to how he uses his hunting skills to find targets and seek revenge.
Have you guys ever heard the saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,”? That phrase could almost apply to my experience with the Sony Spider-Man Universe. Note the use of the word almost. I say this because I basically go to see Sony’s Spider-Man villain standalone films out of obligation. Very rarely do I look forward to these movies. I think the closest I got to actually looking forward to one of these movies was “Morbius,” which ended up being my worst film of 2022. Although now that I think about it, I was intrigued by at least one trailer for “Venom: Let There be Carnage” before it came out. At least there is that.
For those playing catchup, let me give you the rundown so far on my thoughts on all the movies in the Sony Spider-Man universe… First “Venom” movie… Terrible! A lot of people seem to think it is okay. I think it is one of the most bland, boring, and horribly polished comic book movies ever made. Second “Venom” movie… Actually, pretty good. I thought the action was fun, it ups the one good thing about the original movie, specifically the humor. And it contains maybe the greatest PG-13 f-bomb in cinematic history. “Morbius…” A big fat joke! Other than Jared Leto’s performance and parts of the first act, there is nothing redeeming about this film. Oh yeah, let’s not forget that the marketing lied to its audience and the film may be responsible for the most tacked on and abysmal end credits scenes of all time. “Madame Web…” somehow WORSE than “Morbius!” Not even big name actors can save this abomination! Also, for some reason, this schlock saw the light of day despite being written by the same team who wrote “Morbius.” Bad dialogue, okay at best action, horrible camerawork, and another case of deceptive marketing. Genuinely one of the worst films I have ever seen, and if you think I am saying this for dramatic effect, I have some magic beans to sell you. And lastly, “Venom: The Last Dance…” Safe to say, I was immensely bored. Other than the chemistry between Eddie and the titular character on top of one admirable motivation between them, I thought this threequel was a waste of time. Add on a whole Area 51 subplot that nearly put me to sleep, then you have a recipe for, surprisingly, the second best Sony Spider-Man Universe movie. How sad.
Thus far, the Sony Spider-Man Universe, or whatever you want to call it at this point, is one for five. People say the recently finished DCEU sucks compared to the MCU? Oh, boy oh boy, this universe WISHES it were the DCEU! That universe has cinematic bangers like “Wonder Woman” and “The Suicide Squad!” The DCEU even spawned the incredible TV series “Peacemaker!” While definitely inconsistent, when that cinematic universe fired on all cylinders, it was on the right track. But “Kraven the Hunter” had something attached to it that the other movies did not… An R rating! Yeah! That “Morbius” nonsense? That is for babies! Now it is daddy’s turn! If “Deadpool” can get away with an R, so can “Kraven!”
Having seen the movie, it may be able to get away with an R, but it certainly is not getting away from my infinite rage. This is yet another epic fail for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. Though am I really surprised?
Sony, how many times do we have to do this same old song and dance before it becomes stale? I think this is a great question.
…If I were an imbecile!
This whole Sony Spider-Man Barrel of Monkeys was already stale from the first of these wannabe “Spider-Man” flicks. I ask this question specifically to you guys. Genuinely! What on earth are you doing?! What is it going to take for this saga of nonsense to end?! I understand that the rights to “Spider-Man” are your most valuable asset, but if you keep making movies like these, then this whole property is going to be a joke. Tom Holland is not going to be playing the character forever. The “Spider-Verse” series can only go on for so long. You can only do so many crossovers involving the three live-action Spider-Men before they stop acting. The solution is not to continue making cheap, boring anti-hero movies featuring villains as the main character. Movies like “Kraven the Hunter” justify cases where movies like “Batgirl” get scrapped by the studio for a tax write-off.
Honestly, if someone popped me the question as to which movie I would want to watch more, and I had to pick between the first “Venom” and “Kraven the Hunter,” I might go with “Venom!” At least in “Venom,” you had some occasional funny lines and some decent chemistry between the two main characters. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is clearly giving the lead role his all here. But he does not have a great script to back him up. While Aaron Taylor-Johnson is playing the lead role, he is not even the most high profile actor on the roster. The film also features Russell Crowe, and I think it is safe to say that I was not entertained by his completely one-dimensional so-called character. Crowe plays Kraven’s father, and not only is he unworthy of even a Dollar Tree card on Father’s Day, but he has incredibly repetitive, cliche dialogue. The movie clearly establishes him as far from the finest father figure. That seems to be the point at times. But I cared so little about the story and characters of this film to the point where Crowe’s character comes off as a joke.
Then you have Ariana DeBose, who is one of the most dynamic, lively, energetic talents working today. The woman in the past couple years deservedly won an Academy Award for “West Side Story.” She was also pretty good in other films following that, even if they did not get the best reviews. Unpopular opinion, I really liked “Wish…” I said what I said. DeBose, to my shock and amazement, plays one of the most forgettable core characters of a comic book film I have ever seen. If you were to ask me what the purpose of this character was in a few years from now, I will probably refer to her as the boring tarot card lady or something, because while her presence serves the story, it does so in maybe the dullest way possible. Shoutout to Sony for making two movies in the same year that somehow made me give me even less of a crap about tarot cards than I already do. Anybody remember the film “Tarot” from earlier this year? No? If you are loyal to this blog you will hear about it again soon on the top 10 worst movies of 2024 list once I get finished with that. You know, kind of like this atrocity some like to call a comic book movie.
Going back to what I said about “Madame Web” and how a big name cast could not save the film from being bad. I think “Kraven the Hunter” somehow takes that inferiority to another level. Because yes, Dakota Johnson and Sydney Sweeney have been in big projects. Some good, some bad. That is the classic life of an actor, but they are both lucky enough to achieve their level of fame. Sweeney has been nominated for a couple Primetime Emmys so congrats to her. That said, “Kraven the Hunter” is much more excruciating to think about because while “Madame Web’s” Sweeney has gotten some awards attention, “Kraven” has multiple actors who have actually have prestigious awards on their mantle.
Again, you have Russell Crowe who has an extended career, an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, and two Golden Globes. Circling back to Ariana DeBose, it was like watching Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy in “Batman & Robin,” but worse. Because while Thurman was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in “Pulp Fiction,” a couple years before that flopbuster came out, DeBose actually WON her Academy Award. I do not think DeBose’s performance is Razzie-worthy. There is nothing extreme about it that makes it stand out as one of the worst performances of all time. The best word I can use to describe it would be “tiring.” I guess that is one reason to watch this movie again. If I am really tired and want to catch some z’s, “Kraven the Hunter” might make for solid background noise.
I will be fair to Crowe, however. As infuriating as his character is to watch, I must admit he makes the most of a crappy script with his chops. Crowe does his best with the material to the point where I almost cannot imagine anyone else in his role. So… Yay?…
Another actor I enjoyed watching in this hot mess? Aaron Taylor-Johnson. No, it is not because of his abs. He legit does an okay job as the lead. Again, his character is not written well. But I buy him in the role. He is not perfect, but he definitely has an inkling of charisma. I just wish such charisma were saved for something that would not be a waste of my time and money. That is another consistency with these Sony movies. As much as I do not like “Venom,” I still think Tom Hardy is well cast as the lead role. Same goes for Jared Leto in “Morbius.”
For those of you who saw the first eight minutes of the movie when it dropped online, you would know it starts off with, admittedly, a halfway decent action sequence. That adjective might as well be used to describe a good amount of the action in this film. The action does not reinvent the wheel. There are a couple cuts that I thought were a little too quick, but for the most part, the action is one of the better parts of the movie. “Kraven the Hunter” sometimes finds its footing in some places, but when it comes to structure, that is definitely not one of those places. Sure, the movie starts off with a decent action scene that could likely hook viewers into the story. But then we get to the part of the film that dives into Kraven’s origins. The timing of this transition feels abrupt and out of place. Given the length of these moments and how long it deviates from what we already saw in Kraven’s adulthood, I would have preferred for the final cut of the film to start with Kraven’s origins. It would allow me to more easily know and understand the characters that way if we were to get to an action sequence like the one we see at the beginning, I would probably care a little more about the people in the scene and possibly the sequence itself.
I will give props to Sony for not hiring Mark Sazama and Burk Sharpless to write this film. Although to be fair, they were probably already busy figuring out how to beat the odds and make a worse screenplay for “Madame Web” than they did for “Morbius.” Spoiler alert, they did. Instead, this film has three writers. You have Richard Wenk, known for writing the “Equalizer” movies starring Denzel Washington. I have not watched those films, but I have heard good things. His resume contains some other notable work, but oddly enough, I cannot give my opinion on any of his titles because I never watched any of them. As for the other two writers, you have Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. These are two of the four writers responsible for one of the better Marvel Cinematic Universe films, “Iron Man.” Although the rest of their resume is not particularly great. There is “Men in Black: International,” which I actually liked. But there are also a lot of people who would challenge my unpopular opinion. They just did “Uncharted,” which has a couple cool action scenes, but the screenplay has nothing that stands out about it. The film itself is rather unmemorable. Then we travel back in time to my least favorite movie of theirs, “Transformers: The Last Knight.” My biggest problem with the film is with the headache-inducing use of IMAX technology that honestly leaves no one but Michael Bay to blame. But if I had another notable problem, it is that the film’s script repeats the problems of the previous movies, but somehow delivers maybe the least engaging journey the franchise has given yet. Going back even further to a movie I did not see, these two even did “Punisher: War Zone,” which was not only poorly reviewed, but with more than $10 million total, it made less money at the box office than any other movie based on Marvel Comics. Part of me is convinced that Sony could be having a streak of bad luck, but then I look at the resumes of the people they hire and I think either their options are limited, they are choosing the wrong people, or they have better options out there and do not want to spend more money on them. I have no clue.
In all seriousness though, this trio of writers managed to join forces to create one of the most snore-inducing films of the year. I do not think there is any way to sugarcoat this. It is also full of Academy Award-level lines like “I’m a hunter.” In addition to Russell Crowe repeatedly telling his boys, and therefore the audience, that their mother died and she was weak. As I watched this movie and came to realize the director and cast handled their material, I honestly thought “Kraven the Hunter” has a feel that is kind of similar to “The Room.” I say kind of because unlike “The Room,” the chances of me ever watching “Kraven the Hunter” again are pretty slim. But this is a movie that I can honestly watch, acknowledge how bad it is, and sometimes burst out laughing for the wrong reasons. If you want a more genre-related example, I will go back to the recently mentioned “Batman & Robin.” It definitely makes me laugh, but the humor sometimes feels accidental.
You know the Island of Misfit Toys from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?” If there were ever a place I could associate with this universe, that would be it. I assume most inhabitants, or in this case, filmmakers, actors, producers, crew, etc., that make it up are kind, but compared to the toys Santa delivers to kids on Christmas, which in this case would be Disney’s MCU and Warner Brothers’ DCEU, Sony’s got its own little private island full of outcasts. I have not gone back to watch a single Sony Spider-Man Enigmaverse movie since seeing them in the theater, other than “Venom: Let There be Carnage” when it was airing one time on cable. It is like that scene from “Toy Story 2” where Andy picks up Woody and says he does not want to play with him anymore, except in this case, the toy is fresh out of the box and has barely been used.
This is why I ask Sony not to sell the rights to “Spider-Man…” I really want to see them pump out that third “Spider-Verse” movie. Instead I would like Sony to stop with these standalone villain spinoffs. These are not movies, these are corporate products designed by people trying to fill a release slot and keep the rights just a while longer. “Kraven the Hunter” is the latest example of this. If you are looking for Spider-Man connections in this film, all you are getting are secondary characters who appear in various Spider-Man properties who are poorly executed, and one scene where a ton of spiders are on screen. It is not even a good scene! Spider-Man is not in this movie. Peter Parker is not in this movie. Although the Rhino is in this movie. This time around is better than how the character was presented in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but that does not really say much.
Speaking of which, let’s talk about the CGI… This movie is chock-full of distractingly noticeable visuals. Going back to Rhino, that is one example. You can definitely tell he has fake skin, but I would not even consider that the worst CGI in this film. This film has multiple scenes containing animals, including a lion I thought looked somewhat artificial, but at most I would consider to be tolerable. The animals that stood out to me the most in terms of how offputting they looked are the buffalo. And there are a lot of them in this movie. There is this scene where this buffalo is holding steady in front of Kraven. They are in the middle of a field. When that buffalo is staying still, all that allows me to do is take in as much detail as possible to realize that the creature looks like something out of a video game. When Kraven is looking at this buffalo, he comes off like he is staring at a picture instead of something live.
Sony, please. Just stop! I have had it up to here at this point! This year is the 100th anniversary of Columbia Pictures. When it comes to celebrating it, this, “Venom: The Last Dance,” and “Madame Web” were clearly not the best ways to do it on the Marvel front. I am thankful they brought all the old “Spider-Man” movies back to theaters. I went back to watch “Spider-Man 2” and “Spider-Man 3” in the theater this year. If for whatever reason Sony decides to do some anniversary screening for “Kraven the Hunter,” I am going to give it a hard pass.
In the end, “Kraven the Hunter” sucks. Plain and simple. It is a poorly structured, badly edited, laughably acted, shoddily directed misfire that I would not recommend to anyone. I will honestly watch “Venom: The Last Dance” three more times before turning this movie on again. Yes, there are positives. The action is okay. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a good choice to play Kraven. And even though Russell Crowe plays an unlikable character, he at least acts like he is giving two squirts of urine about his role. “Kraven the Hunter” is not a movie. It is a series of scenes spliced together by a corporation to continue preserving franchise rights. If this is the last movie we see in the Sony Spider-Man Insert Clever Name Here, good riddance. I am going to give “Kraven the Hunter” a 2/10.
“Kraven the Hunter” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3,” and “Flow.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Kraven the Hunter?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your 2024 comic book movies ranked? What a terrible question that must be… That is like ranking your children, and you are choosing your favorite child based on which one you find the least irritating. I will admit, I did not even see “The Crow” this year. I think I dodged a bullet with that one. That said, there were plenty of awful comic book films this year to make up for whatever that one would end up being. If you have a ranking, list your top movies down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Here” is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) and stars Tom Hanks (Toy Story, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood), Robin Wright (Forrest Gump, The Princess Bride), Paul Bettany (WandaVision, A Knight’s Tale), and Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Above Suspicion). This film chronicles various events over millions of years from the same location, capturing the moments and lives of those who live there.
First off, for those not aware or for those who happen to live outside the United States, this review is being posted just before Thanksgiving. Because you cannot have Thanksgiving… without “T Hanks.” In all seriousness though, Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis make for one of the most notable actor-director duos in Hollywood. The two have worked together to create films including “Cast Away,” “The Polar Express,” and in the past couple years, Disney+’s “Pinocchio.” Both people are reuniting for their latest collaboration, “Here.” Also appearing in the film, Robin Wright, therefore allowing for a “Forrest Gump” reunion. The fact that this film had talented, experienced people is only part of why I was looking forward to it. Having first seen the trailer to “Here” at my local multiplex a few months ago, I have been excited for it ever since. I was under the impression that this could end up being a unique film with a lot of potential.
From a camerawork and cinematography perspective, “Here” is by no means as immersively complex as “Birdman,” a movie that is set in multiple locations and uses blink you’ll miss it techniques to trick your mind into thinking it is done as one singular shot. But the selling point that kept me most interested in “Here” was getting to see the camera sit in a spot where it does not move. Having seen the film, I think the film gets creative with that concept, spanning different points in time. Everything from prehistory to the birth of the United States to modern times where we see the interior of a suburban house. The movie always maintains a quick pace from scene to scene, and even in moments that feel less relevant to the big picture, I was still hypnotized by everything that was going on.
That said, much like another Robert Zemeckis film featuring Tom Hanks, “The Polar Express,” this film could use some work when it comes to the characters. I have gone several holidays watching “The Polar Express” and even though the point a to b progression is clear for its protagonist, the Hero Boy, I cannot say I resonated with that film’s characters maybe to a degree I would have preferred. I always found the “experience” of watching “Polar Express” to be immersive, often inviting. But I wish I got to know the people in the film on a deeper level. Most of them are one-note or stereotypical. Similar to the ride to the North Pole in “The Polar Express,” I like the journey “Here” takes me on. This movie also has one notable improvement over “The Polar Express.” It does a better job fleshing out its main characters, a task that marvels me considering how many points in time and the list of people this film deals with. But even with that in mind, the characters themselves are still not the greatest when it comes to Zemeckis’s filmography. I am not going to remember anyone’s name from this film within the next couple months. If I watch this film a second time, which for the record, I would, I am probably going to be just as immersed as I was in the first. But whereas “The Polar Express” takes you on a fantastical voyage, “Here” is essentially like watching security camera footage but with twice the production value.
The one consistent story through a security camera is not always a person being captured, but rather the room or space someone just so happens to be in. Similarly, the story for “Here” is not consistent. It is bits and pieces. Perhaps it is an allegory on life itself. As we age, we remember certain times of our lives more than others, and maybe this movie is a reflection of our deepest memories. There are moments that speak to us, there are little things in the background, and even some times of our lives we would rather forget. It also shows how places can become a foundation of who we are. If you have a home for a long time, like the place or not, it becomes a part of you.
While I found the pace of the film to be a positive, I also found its fidgety structure to be a negative. The film is presented in a non-linear order, and in some ways, it works. Part of me wonders if Zemeckis wanted to do this film linearly at one point and was not loving it. I honestly do not know if the film would be any better had it been linear, in fact, one could argue it would be worse, I wonder if most audiences would like it. But still, the film is a bit clunky, though somewhat surprisingly, it also happens to be clear.
Once again, this is the latest project between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis. But of course, another one of Zemeckis’s collaborators is here too, composer Alan Silvestri. Far and away, my favorite scores I have heard this year are definitely “Dune Part Two” and “IF.” And while Silvestri does not bring forth a score as memorable as those, he holds his own. Similar to “Inside Out 2,” this film opens with music that comes off as welcoming as can be. It is grand, it is prominent, it almost takes me into the screen. I could see myself listening to parts of the score in my free time.
For those who do not know their film history, “Forrest Gump” won Best Picture at the Academy Awards the year it came out. Having seen “Here,” it is hard to say that this film is going to be nominated for even one Oscar this year. Yes, Tom Hanks is given a lot to do. But I cannot name a moment of this film where he particularly stands out, and the same can be said for most of the ensemble. Though if I recall any actor in this film being a surprising standout, it would be Paul Bettany. “Here” is definitely not the worst film in Zemeckis’s library, but it is far from his best. It is no “Back to the Future,” though I will definitely remember this film more than “Allied” or that adaptation he did of Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” that ended up going to HBO Max. But I cannot lie, even though I would not say the film is perfect, it is a unique, fun, fascinating journey and I think it is remarkable how much material and substance some scenes are able to present about a specific time, specific people, and their lives with just so little material to work with.
In the end, “HERE” are my thoughts on the movie… I had a really good time with it! Is it messy? Sure, but much like the characters sometimes come to realize about the house we see for most of the film, it is sometimes a beautiful mess. I also dug the ending. The movie caps off on an emotional note. Kind of like Robert Zemeckis’s 2018 film “Welcome to Marwen,” I wonder if I am going to be alone when it comes to my positive opinion regarding this film. I loved “Welcome to Marwen” when I saw it. In fact, I loved it so much that I was shocked to find out how many other people did not like it. Having seen “Here” however, I can get why this movie would not work for certain people. At times it feels more like an experiment than a concrete story. But it does not mean the experiment is boring. I was invested from start to finish. I am going to give “Here” a 7/10.
“Here” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K, “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite collaboration between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Venom: The Last Dance” is directed by Kelly Marcel and this is her directorial debut. This film stars Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Mad Max: Fury Road), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Juno Temple (Fargo, Ted Lasso), Rhys Ifans (The Amazing Spider-Man, The King’s Man), Stephen Graham (Gangs of New York, Snatch), Peggy Lu (Always be My Maybe, Kung Pow: Enter the Fist), Clark Backo (The Changeling, Letterkenny), Alanna Ubach (Meet the Fockers, Legally Blonde), and Andy Serkis (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther). This film is the third installment in the “Venom” franchise and centers around the titular host and his human bud Eddie Brock as the they are on the run for the sake of survival and for the latter to clear his name.
If you are new to Scene Before, you would know I love comic book movies. I think the sub-genre has consistently entertained me for years, and in some cases, given me some of my favorite movies of all time like “The Suicide Squad” or “Avengers: Infinity War.” Those two movies are from different cinematic universes, specifically the Detective Comics Extended Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while the “Venom” movies are also based on Marvel characters, they are not a part of the mainline MCU. Well, sort of. That is unless you count that one scene in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” But as far as the “Venom” movies go, they are under Sony’s Spider-Man Universe, which interestingly, barely has Spider-Man in it. This cinematic universe has been responsible for turds in the wind like “Morbius” and “Madame Web.” If I were to make a worst films of the 2020s list right now, I guarantee you both of those will end up in the top 5. But for some reason, the one successful property in this universe is “Venom,” which I find kind of sad. Not just because it is massively outperforming its partner films, leaving them in the dust. But because if you want me to be honest with you, I do not find these films to be that great. Sure, I liked the second “Venom” movie. I will admit “Let There be Carnage” has its moments. That film delivers some okay action, has a lot of laughs, and the pacing is tightly knit. But the first “Venom?” I could never watch that movie again. I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them.
As far as “Venom: The Last Dance” goes, I do not find the film to be the worst of the trilogy. But that does not mean the movie is good. The film starts off okay. One highlight in particular involves Venom and Eddie fighting a bunch of dudes in a warehouse. That part was entertaining and I really enjoyed some of the gore delivered in that sequence. I thought another highlight was seeing Venom and Eddie hang on the side of a plane thousands of feet in the air. But there is not really anything else worth writing home about. For the most part, the movie is slow. Considering the tight pace of the previous installment, slow is probably the last word I would want to use when describing “Venom: The Last Dance,” but here we are. As for the villain in this film, I honestly almost did not care at all. So I guess you could say that the Sony Spider-Man Universe seems to be taking some inspiration from the much more successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, but maybe not in the way one would want them to.
Even though I think this whole trilogy has been a loss, I think the one win throughout all three films, if you can call it, is the bond between Eddie and Venom. We see Tom Hardy doing an okay job as both characters. And Venom in particular has always been funny. As much as I hated the first movie in this trilogy, I still laugh thinking about the one scene where Venom calls Eddie a “p****” for not jumping from a building and instead taking an elevator to leave. The two continue to have decent chemistry in this third installment. Unfortunately I do not think they are as funny as they were before. But I think when it comes to the duo’s aspirations in this film, that part was nice to see. We find out that Venom wants to go see the Statue of Liberty, and seeing that motivation play out was kind of wholesome. Granted, we find out at the beginning of the film that is not the only reason these two are going to New York, but it is nice to know that this alien character has these humanistic desires. You can tell that these two have grown to care about each other. I just wish the screenplay was more compelling. It lacks an oomph. It lacks a direction. It lacks a substance that makes the film exciting.
Remember Mrs. Chen from the previous movies? Well guess what? She is back! I will admit, when I saw the trailers for this film and I watched her character in context of what was given to me through said trailers, I was curious about what she would do in this film. Honestly though, she does not add much to the plot, the progression of the story, anything. She is literally just there for the sake of being there. Although this time instead of seeing her behind the counter of a convenience store, she makes a trip out to Las Vegas to party it up. She has a penthouse suite, she’s dressed like a queen, the whole nine yards. While I admittedly found Peggy Lu to give a somewhat memorable performance in the film, you could almost take her out and have the outcome of the film barely change at all. Her appearance in this film barely serves the story, and ultimately comes off as a distraction if anything. What happens in Vegas should certainly stay out of “Venom: The Last Dance.”
In my review for “Venom: Let There be Carnage,” I mentioned I had one notable moment that could be described as a guilty pleasure from that movie. Particularly the moment where Eddie and Venom are arguing and the whole thing results in this hilarious fiasco where Venom throws out Eddie’s TV. This leads to another scene some time later where we see a brand new Sony television that was clearly intended to be there for product placement purposes. After all, these movies are from Sony, so they have to show off their products somehow. This trend appears to continue in “Venom: The Last Dance,” but the product placement is likely not as obvious as the last time. For those who do not know, Sony owns “Wheel of Fortune.” When Eddie gets to a casino in Las Vegas, he walks to a Wheel of Fortune slot machine, a common staple at these places, and sits down. The scene at said slot machine is rather short, but sweet. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It is a somewhat accurate representation of the thrill, and agony of gambling. You see Eddie mashing the button like he’s learning how to play “Mortal Kombat,” Venom is getting a sudden sensation he has never experienced before, he goes on saying this is the greatest feeling he’s ever had. But it does not take long for them to hit a low, particularly running out of money. Venom prompts Eddie to smash the machine in rage. The scene delivers some laughs, and as someone who has enjoyed his time at the slot machine, and occasionally questioned myself for sitting down at one in the first place, this is a good representation of what it is like to gamble sometimes.
By the way, if the hooligans at Foxwoods Resort in Connecticut are reading this, give me my freaking money back that you guys snatched from me in September, NOW.
That said, one minor detail, they likely customized the “Wheel of Fortune” slot machine for this movie, because I cannot recall one time I have played those machines, or any others for that matter, and saw an enormous “YOU LOSE” graphic on those machines. I know gambling can be cruel, but they’re not exactly arcade games. The game is never over on slot machines, it just stops at a point until someone keeps it going.
Speaking of minor details, one of my biggest laughs in the movie is the likely the result of me spending way too much time looking into details on passenger airplanes. Yes, like some other people, I have had growing worries about flying certain Boeing aircrafts. But even before planes like the 737 MAX became a hot topic of concern, I knew about some models thanks to YouTube. There is a moment in “Venom: The Last Dance” where Eddie explains to Venom that the two latched off the exterior of a Boeing 757. It takes a bit for Venom to chime in about this, but at one point he shouts, “It was an Airbus A320!” I am by no means an air geek or planespotter, but I do have an appreciation for air travel. I think the whole process behind it and the way it is managed is sometimes a scam, but either way, that particular line made me lose it when Venom said it. Plus the fact that Venom shouted it with such certainty made the execution of the line come off as admirable as possible.
But the more I think about this “Venom” trilogy, the more I think these movies are the kinds that Martin Scorsese would look at and go, “Hard pass.” And you know what? Now that I have sat through all three of these monstrosities, I would be right there with him. To use Scorsese’s words, and I may sound like a hypocrite because this goes against what I said about the pacing earlier, “Venom: The Last Dance” undoubtedly has the pace of a theme park ride. You may be wondering if I am high right now. Just moments ago I said this movie was slow. What kind of theme park ride are we talking about? Well, if we were to talk about faster theme park rides like a roller coaster, such a pace is most evident when we are with Eddie and Venom. Whenever their presence is absent, “Venom: The Last Dance” becomes a complete and total snoozefest. The main duo’s connection kind of saves the movie in the same way it has done so in the franchise’s predecessors. Everything involving Area 51 was boring. Some of the characters in those scenes were not as compelling as maybe they could have been. They felt flat. They felt wooden. If anything, these movies somewhat remind me of the reality TV genre. This is not a comparison to every show within the genre, but if you watch certain reality shows you will notice how hyped up the main cast tends to get sometimes. When I think of this Venom trilogy, I think of the titular character’s voice. I think about how loud that voice can get in select scenes to the point where it drowns out all the other characters. Granted, sometimes it is appealing, but it does not change the fact that this movie feels like noise for the sake of noise.
Also, with this being the third installment of a trilogy, the film tries to go out on a note of finality. Or as Hollywood puts it, “The end… Until we make a billion dollars.” Unfortunately, the note of finality this movie tends to provide feels tacked on. Never once did I get any emotion between these two characters. Part of it is because this property is far from the gold standard of comic book movies, therefore I never had any attachment to these films to begin with. While I thought the second film is good, I think the first one is ridiculous garbage, and at the time, the worst “Spider-Man”-related film I had seen. Then came “Morbius,” then came “Madame Web…” Oh my god. This goddamn timeline. Sony, get your act together! Because I have had it! Either get people who care about these characters, or give the rights to somebody else! I could tell Tom Hardy is probably having a blast making these movies, but I cannot say I am having the best time watching them. They are barely good enough to be eye candy. And it is not even good eye candy. It is like eye candy that is a bit past its expiration date! It can still be edible, but is it really? It is honestly not that good. When I look at Venom in this movie and the many symbiotic creatures we end up seeing, it reminds me of the “Star Wars” prequels in a sense because if you remember those movies in comparison to the original trilogy, you would notice a significantly higher presence of lightsabers, and therefore lightsaber fights. When you look at the original trilogy, lightsabers felt special and were always used to serve the story. In the prequels, the lightsaber use sometimes comes off as an excuse to put said objects on the screen like they are jangling keys. Do not get me wrong, sometimes I was hypnotized by those jangling keys, but still.
My point is, when I look at all the symbiotic creatures, it makes the character of Venom feel less like a one of a kind, and perhaps as commonplace as a Dunkin’ location in New England. Venom does not feel special in this movie. Granted, in the previous films, he faced off against other symbiotic beings, but the count of symbiotic beings in those movies were minimal. There was still a novelty to the concept. You could almost argue that there are some story purposes to the number of creatures in this film, considering this film is set in Area 51. This “Venom” film is definitely going bigger than the previous two installments. Though in contrary to the common saying, bigger does not mean better. In this case, the movie is so big that it leaves me wondering how many of these creatures are in the movie for the sole purpose of selling toys. In fact, there are a couple times in this movie where I was looking at numerous characters or shifts the symbiote itself makes and in my head I’m going, “There’s a toy.” “There’s another toy.” “There’s a toy.” “There’s a Hot Toy.” “There’s an action figure.” “There’s a Funko Pop.” When the trailers showed off the Venomized horse, I was intrigued by how delightfully weird such a concept could be. And when that was shown in the movie, I thought it was fun to watch on screen. But for the most part, I kept looking at the symbiotic creatures and thought the whole idea was overdone by the climax of the film. Now I may sound like a hypocrite, because looking back at say the MCU’s “Iron Man 3,” I was thrilled when the climax went down and all the Iron Man suits showed up. But that was on top of an already engaging film containing characters I cared about and a story that moved along at a decent pace. The finale for “Iron Man 3” was the cherry on top of a sundae whereas the finale for “Venom: The Last Dance” felt like a bunch of creatures I did not care about facing off a threat I did not care about.
Could I watch “Venom: The Last Dance” if I were drunk? That is a question I personally find to be a bit tough to answer, mainly because I do not drink. Maybe this is why I hate these movies. Because I refuse the booze. But in all seriousness, as I look at “Venom: The Last Dance,” this is a movie that would probably be best watched in a setting that includes alcohol. Heck, part of the movie takes place in Vegas! Now you get to watch a movie about a guy and his alien pal going to a place where poor decisions are highly encouraged while also making some poor decisions right from your own couch. Although if you ask me, watching “Venom: The Last Dance” is already enough of poor decision.
In the end, “Venom: The Last Dance” is one of the worst films of the year. The film starts off average and just gets worse as it goes. This is just the latest comic book movie to come out in 2024 that I found to be a waste of time. If it were not for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” every comic book movie that came out this year would have been a dud. Now, it is hard to top the injustice that is “Madame Web,” and thankfully, “Venom: The Last Dance” is an improvement from that schlock. Is “Venom: The Last Dance” as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux?” Surprisingly, no. These are words I did not think I would be saying months ago! For one thing, despite there being more cons than pros in “Venom: The Last Dance,” it does have some entertainment value. There are some funny lines here and there. There are one or two decent action sequences. But it is not enough to make a good movie. The palette of the film is somewhat depressing. The moments that try to trigger your emotions did not get to me. I did not care for a lot of the supporting characters. And to my surprise, the film sometimes moves at a snail’s pace.
I genuinely hope, against all odds, that come December, “Kraven the Hunter” is a good movie. Because I have no faith in it at this point. And why should I have any faith in it? Literally the only film in this Sony Spider-Man Universe that has worked for me so far is “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” The first “Venom” was terrible. “Morbius” sucked. “Madame Web” is one of the worst films I have ever seen. For those of you who have comic book movie fatigue, I cannot relate. We clearly live in different worlds. Again, unpopular opinion I guess, I liked every MCU film since “Endgame.” If the MCU did not exist, and Sony’s stinkers were all that were coming out, there is a chance I could be asking for more quality products, or maybe I would be fatigued. This is supposedly the end of Eddie and Venom’s journey together, but there are future plans for the ongoing Sony Spider-Man Universe. As much as I am peeved at Sony for the state of said universe, I do not envy their position right now. Their most successful property is concluding, and now they supposedly have the comic book movie equivalent of the Island of Misfit Toys to play with. Honestly, if “Kraven the Hunter” is a complete bust, I would not be shocked if Tom Holland never stops playing “Spider-Man.” You think Disney is going to make Hugh Jackman play Wolverine until he’s 90? Ha! Fat chance! Watch what Sony is going to make Tom Holland do with “Spider-Man” if their other projects continue to fail.
I mean… At least there is “Spider-Verse.” That seems to be kicking butt right now.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is the first film directed by Kelly Marcel, and should she continue to direct movies, I hope they are more successful than this. I wish her nothing but the best. But unfortunately, when it comes to comic book movies, “Venom: The Last Dance” is far from the best. I am going to give “Venom: The Last Dance” a 4/10.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” Also coming soon, the next installment in my Election Days review series, I will be reviewing “On the Basis of Sex,” which is about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Venom: The Last Dance?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Venom” movie? For me, the answer is easily “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” But what about you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 