Sony

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone But You (2023): Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell Star in a Romantic Comedy That Neither Feels Romantic or Funny

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Anyone But You” is directed by Will Gluck (Friends with Benefits, Peter Rabbit) and stars Sydney Sweeney (Euphoria, The Handmaid’s Tale), Glen Powell (Hidden Figures, Top Gun: Maverick), Alexandra Shipp (X-Men: Apocalypse, Barbie), GaTa (Good Mourning, Dave), Hadley Robinson (Utopia, Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty), Michelle Hurd (Star Trek: Picard, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), Dermont Mulroney (The Wedding Date, About Schmidt), Darren Barnet (Never Have I Ever, Gran Turismo), Bryan Brown (Cocktail, The Thorn Birds), and Rachel Griffiths (The King’s Daughter, Hacksaw Ridge). This film is about man and a woman who meet in a coffee shop, hit it off romantically, only to have everything fall apart the next day. Some time later, the two reunite at a destination wedding in Australia all the while pretending to be a couple.

During many of my horror movie reviews, I would point out that horror is one of my weaker genres. When I started Scene Before, and even before I started, I tended to avoid horror because many of the movies coming out in said genre either looked identical or uninteresting. Thankfully, having explored more of the genre over the years, I have welcomed quite a few fascinating titles into my life. Similarly, romcoms are another type of film that usually slip under the radar for me. They’re just not my kind of movie. I’ve watched romcoms in the past. In 2019 I saw and reviewed “Long Shot” and “Isn’t It Romantic?,” which offered two completely different experiences for me. In 2022 I reviewed “Ticket to Paradise,” which ultimately got a thumbs up from me despite some problems that came up throughout the runtime. Last year, I reviewed “No Hard Feelings,” which I called a romcom in my review, though looking back it probably would be more accurate to call it a sex comedy than a romantic comedy. When it comes to this blog I have some experience with the genre. But compared to some other types of films, I am a bit of a novice here.

That said, this film is directed by Will Gluck, whose resume as a writer and director is kind of iffy. He previously did the recent “Peter Rabbit” movies, both of which I skipped because they looked like wastes of time. He did “Friends with Benefits,” which I thought was kind of cute. He also did the 2014 edition of “Annie,” which I watched once when it was on Starz. I did not see all of it, but I saw enough of to say I would rather devote my time to something more valuable. Gluck did not write this film, but he also directed “Easy A,” which thanks to some brilliant pacing, a great story, snappy editing, and a marvelous lead performance by Emma Stone, ended up being one of the more memorable coming of age stories of the 2010s.

So, going into “Anyone But You,” I cannot say I was stoked. But I would say I had generously moderate expectations.

Even with those expectations in mind, I was still let down.

This film is dumb. And I can tell it is dumb on purpose. But it is the kind of dumb I cannot appreciate. There is a difference between dumb fun and just dumb. This is the latter. Maybe it is because it is more in line with the films I usually like to seek out, I found a film like “Godzilla vs. Kong” to be an excellent example of dumb fun because even with the wooden characters and oddly structured storyline, the film has some of the best action I had seen in some time upon its release. It was a technical beast. The score was incredible. The special effects were really good. There was a lot to appreciate visually that kept the movie from being bad, unlike its 2019 predecessor, “Godzilla: King of the Monsters.” On the other hand, there are plenty of times in “Anyone But You” where visual gags popped up that either did not generate a reaction out of me, or if they did generate one, it was one that I don’t think the movie would have been going for.

Much of the humor in “Anyone But You,” most notably in the first half, are visual gags that either have to do with private parts or showing off ironclad bodies, sometimes both. It’s the same joke over and over again. If the joke is not funny the first time. Then it is not funny the second, third, fourth, and fifth time. The joke was old when it started, and it was basically on its deathbed by the film’s halfway mark.

My favorite joke in the movie though is one that involves a koala. Of course, Australia, koalas. What a pair. But there are a couple moments in the movie where we see a koala, and those made for my most notable reactions of the film. The jokes are so simple and quick, but that’s part of what makes them great.

And speaking of Australia, one joke that got old really fast was how much this movie utilized the character of Beau. The actor who portrays him, Joe Davidson, said in a press release, “Beau is what you get when you mix all the Australian islands and icons all into one character.” I have lived in the Boston area all my life, and I have seen a number of movies where the characters in said area will have noticeably played up accents. Movies like “The Departed” and “Good Will Hunting,” both of which I enjoyed. But the accents in both of them are definitely over the top, I’d say particularly more so in the former at times but I’d have to watch both films again to compare and contrast. And sometimes when the accents, and in the case of “Anyone But You,” the stereotypes, happen to be this played up, it is distracting. It is almost annoying. Beau is a living, breathing caricature of what some people would perhaps interpret as a hunky, Hemsworth-like Australian. And of course, they make a Hemsworth joke in the movie. Totally didn’t see that coming at all… It reminded me, as a Bostonian, when I saw “80 for Brady” and we would cut to the commentators and they would spew out the most asinine, ear-destroying Boston accents I remember hearing in film history. Safe to say, they were wicked awful. I am not saying there is anything wrong with Australia, their traditions, and what people think of them. I just think the jokes here range somewhere between lazy and overdone.

But how are the two leads of the film? I mean, they’re okay I guess. Sydney Sweeney does an alright job in her role and the material given to her, but there is not as much an oomph in her character or performance compared to what I would have liked to see. But I have to say, Glen Powell is a powerhouse in this film. I honestly forgot how charming he is. I thought Powell was one of the highlights of “Top Gun: Maverick,” and I am glad he is bringing the same appeal to this movie. While I did not love the movie, the material, the jokes, basically a ton of things in it, my biggest positive of the film is that I cannot see anyone other than Glen Powell playing his respective role. The movie is not funny, but Powell makes the most of what is in front of him and he is clearly trying. I just wish he were written better.

One of the more prominent problems I have with “Anyone But You” is that it ultimately feels like two different movies. Yes, I know it is a romantic comedy, which basically promises a romantic movie and a comedic movie all in one package, but the movie as a whole seems to lack a sense of consistency. The first half is a plethora of failed attempts at comedy, and the movie seems to dive into something more serious by the end of it that quite frankly did not keep me hooked. Part of that is because I never found myself completely invested with the characters in the first half. And the weird part is, despite noticing more obvious comedic attempts in the first half of the film, I am looking back at the film and would say I found the second half to be funnier.

As the film continues, it becomes cliche-riddled, bore-inducing, and tiresome. Is the movie offensively bad? I would not go that far. But it is far from the first pick I would make on a Friday movie night. Again, romcoms are not my genre, but I have come to a point in my life where I am practically okay watching any kind of movie regardless of the genre or what it is advertised to be. That said, I also heard enough about this film have some hesitancy towards it, and I felt as if I was right on those reservations. The film is not funny, overly cheesy, not romantic, and kind of forgettable. There are so many other options in theaters right now that I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you check out something else instead.

In the end, “Anyone But You” did not work for me. This is a romantic comedy that is neither romantic or funny. The jokes not only sometimes feel been there done that, but even the more clever ones fell flat because they felt as if they were repeating an earlier comedic attempt. Going forward, I am probably not going to remember a single character’s name from this film, maybe except Bea, partially because she is the lead, but the film somewhat reminded me of “Titanic” because of how many times I had to hear the names “Jack” and “Rose” in its extended runtime. I felt as if I had a similar experience hearing Bea’s name throughout the film. This movie is stupid and I feel dumber for having wasted my time on it. I would rather watch anything but this film if you ask me. I am going to give “Anyone But You” a 4/10.

“Anyone But You” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Happy New Year, everyone! And it is time to celebrate with some end of the year countdowns! Pretty soon I am going to be sharing my lists for my best and worst movies of 2023! Stay tuned! If you want to see these lists 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 “Anyone But You?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your least favorite movie genre? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Napoleon (2023): A Historical Epic with a Tall Runtime that Falls Short of any Level of Engagement

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Napoleon” is directed by Ridley Scott (The Last Duel, House of Gucci) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Joker), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Tahar Rahim (A Prophet, The Mauritanian), and Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding, An Ideal Husband). This film is about the rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, diving into many aspects that define the individual, in addition to his relationship with his wife, Josephine.

I was looking forward to “Napoleon” as I am a fan of Ridley Scott. The trailers undoubtedly looked epic and it delivered a similar vibe to another historical epic Scott mastered in his time of making it, “Gladiator.” And of course, with a prominent, talented thespian like Joaquin Phoenix at the forefront, I thought we could be in for something special. Unfortunately, when the reviews started coming out for this film, that is when I decided to lower my expectations, as it seemed to stray away from historical accuracy. But as someone who looks for entertainment in his movies, I can live with a little bending of history as long as you can make a good movie out of it so I tried not to get too concerned. Unfortunately, I walked out of “Napoleon” almost half asleep. And that is really weird to say because one of the positives I have about this movie is the immersive sound mix. It is an enormous aid during the battle scenes. As much as I love Ridley Scott, I think this film is quite a dud.

This film feels rushed, and yet, it somehow managed to bore me with a two and a half hour runtime. I can sit through a two and a half hour movie. Some of my favorite movies are longer than that. But this was painful. I think the one redeeming quality of this movie was watching the uncomfortable relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. But when I say that is a redeeming quality, I must also note that it is like watching a car crash at times. There are certain moments between these two that are intriguing, but there are others where the intrigue comes in, but in a such a haphazard manner that I would feel as if I am doing myself a disservice if I look away. Now to be fair, the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby is admirable in regards to how their characters are written and performed.

As we age, there is a tendency that people define themselves over who they surround themselves with, their legacy, how things will be carried on after they’re gone. And when it comes to displaying Napoleon’s desire to keep things afloat and continue his legacy to the next generation, these traits are emitted with passion on Joaquin Phoenix’s part. My favorite parts of the movie, or at least the ones I cannot stop thinking about, all involve Napoleon’s burning desire to have a child. I think the way the movie handles this segment of the story is surprisingly decent, even if it does get a little over the top.

Speaking of over the top, that is one of my biggest negatives of the film. Phoenix and Kirby shine in their individual roles, but there are plenty of other individuals on screen, and their acting ability has me questioning whether I was actually watching something from a director as renowned as Scott. There are select lines from certain characters that feel like they came out of a high school TV production class. Sometimes those lines are delivered with passion, but they are delivered with a certain passion that would probably be best used in an animation or a comedy as opposed to a somewhat grounded drama. In fact, the movie sort of crosses a line at times into comedy that I have no idea if it was actually intended. There are select scenes that play out in a much funnier manner than I would have imagined them. It almost spirals into a “so bad it’s good” territory, which is a phrase I was not expecting to use when reviewing a Ridley Scott movie.

Even with my issues, I must admit, “Napoleon,” like many of Ridley Scott’s films, is easy on the eyes. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, like usual, is beautiful, even if some of the shots feel a tad rushed in the final edit. The locations are excellent, fit their scenes, and bring life to the production. The production design from one of Scott’s regulars, Arthur Max, is outstanding. The costumes have notable detail. The film is a crisp step back in time. But just because “Napoleon” nails its style, does not mean the same can be said for its substance.

I was bored immensely with the film’s pacing, its story. Everything. There are several moments where I kept asking myself if the movie was over. And the worst part is knowing that this is not a complete product. This is just a lackluster Cliffs Notes edition of a larger tale, because it has been revealed that this production will have a four hour extended version. I kind of get why you would not want to release a four hour movie in theaters, but I would sit through one if I had the time if it meant the pace and story would bring more appeal. Here, it kind of feels rushed and it lacking in engagement.

When it comes to my time studying history, I was off and on as a student. In my opinion, “Napoleon” feels like reading a history textbook. And I do not use that comparison lightly. Basically this whole movie is one giant chapter or unit that I have to go through, and I am passively taking it all in to the best of my ability due to of my lack of interest. I cannot tell you everything that happened in the movie, so if you were to hand me a quiz I would probably not do so hot. And much like reading a textbook, I failed to find any entertainment value in what was in front of me. If I wanted Ridley Scott to entertain me with a slice of history, I will just go back and watch “Gladiator.” I will go back and watch “The Last Duel.” “Napoleon” just doesn’t do it for me. And I think a big part of it is because of how much the movie dives into. It feels like we are hopping from one place in time to another lickety split. With a movie like “The Last Duel,” one of my new favorites from Ridley Scott, there is a central idea the characters have to deal with that remains consistent. In fact, we see it play out a few times in different ways, which makes for a compelling narrative. The film is digestible despite being drawn out. So much happens in “Napoleon” that I would almost argue you need a longer runtime to actually appreciate it. Maybe this would be a good miniseries, but I think the spectacle aspect that is best witnessed in a cinema is probably what could have kept it from going in that direction. And if you are asking, no, I do not have plans to check out the extended cut of this movie. I have better things to do with my time.

In the end, “Napoleon” is a massive disappointment. This movie takes one of the most talked about historical figures of all time and wastes him in a dull, uninteresting, downtrodden mess that nearly put me to sleep. It is much less a story than it is a series of events that failed to capture my interest. The only real shining spot of the film are the performances given by Phoenix and Kirby as Napoleon and Josephine respectively. In fact, part of me wanted to see more of the Josephine character, I feel like she at times offered a more compelling presence than Napoleon did. I have seen movies like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” handle Napoleon Bonaparte from a much more comedic angle. Somehow I continue to think about those attempts at showcasing the character in a much more positive light than I do with this two and a half hour historical so-called “epic.” Yes, it’s technically glorious. You know what was also technically glorious? “Jupiter Ascending!” But you don’t see me raving about the characters of that movie every now and again. I am going to give “Napoleon” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of my Ridley Scott movie reviews, I just did a themed month called “Ridley Scottober” where I discuss four Ridley Scott films in depth. That said, feel free to check out my reviews for “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” “All the Money in the World,” and “Blade Runner.” My next review is going to be for “Godzilla Minus One,” and boy, I cannot wait to share this one with you all. But, I am going to have to wait. Because my next post is going to be an update on Blu-ray Movie Collection! Stay tuned! If you want to see this, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Napoleon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a historical figure? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Persian Version (2023): Two Generations of Stories Come Together in a Uniquely Structured Dramedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Persian Version” is directed by Maryam Keshavarz (Viper Club, Circumstance) and stars Layla Mohammadi (Special Ops: Lioness, The Sex Lives of College Girls), Niousha Noor (Kaleidoscope, Here and Now), Bijan Daneshmand (Infidel, The Night Manager), Bella Warda, and Tom Byrne (The Crown, Road Dance). This film is about a young Iranian-American woman who is at odds with her family, most notably her mother. The two have their key differences. But when a secret is revealed, the young woman realizes that she and her mother may have more in common than then they once thought.

“The Persian Version” is a film that I am not surprised a lot of people are keeping out of the conversation. It is not playing in too many places, and it came out the same weekend as “Five Nights at Freddy’s.” By the way, I have no plans to watch that film for those who ask. But I was very intrigued by “The Persian Version.” I was sold with the marketing. The movie looked, bright, cheery, vibrant, and seemed to make the most of whatever budget it had. It did not look terribly expensive, but it looked polished for a film of its caliber. Turns out, that is just half the battle, because little did I realize what I would be in for.

“The Persian Version” is a quirky, fun, good old fashioned time that occasionally inserts moments of seriousness every once in a while. Is this a good thing? Sort of. There are multiple storylines at hand, all of which deliver some sense of engagement to varying degrees. Like a lot of other movies, there are parts of “The Persian Version” that are better than others. But in the case of “The Persian Version,” even when the movie transitions in an uneven, and nearly cluttered manner, I still find myself invested in much of what is going on.

I found the storytelling and the way it was executed to be particularly creative. It is non-linear, there is an occasional song and dance aspect. There are notable tonal shifts. There is a balance between comedy and drama. But when it comes to those last two things, it is kind of like a see-saw. It has its highs and lows. I found the comedy in particular to be funny, charming, and for the most part, it works. I found the drama to bring the film to a more down to earth feel that gives a sense of perspective for the characters at hand. This does not result in the best movie of the year. Far from it. But it does result in a film I do not regret seeing and one I think that if it is playing near you, would not make for a bad choice. It comes with plenty to enjoy even with its quirks, whether they work or not.

This film starts out in a lighthearted manner. But it sort of does a back and forth transition between genres where at one moment, it is serious. It is dramatic. Then eventually, it reverts back to being something of a comedy. If you have seen my last review, “Freelance,” you would know that meshing genres does not lead to the best results. But in this movie’s favor, it manages to utilize comedy in a way that is humorous. And it also blends in drama to the point where it manages to compel me. But it does not mean the film is without its imperfections. If anything, I think as fascinating as the events within these genre blends are, there is a noticeable sense of inconsistency between them. Because while comedy and drama can work when combined together, the shift from one genre to another feels nearly seismic at times. It does not really allow much room to breathe and the movie almost spends too much time focusing on one genre to the point where it almost has no identity. It is kind of a mish mash, and too extreme of one at that.

The best way I can describe “The Persian Version” is that it is two movies in one package. Both movies are really good, but they almost do not fit together. The story presents itself in two tonal opposites. In comic book movie speak, it’s like combining “Deadpool” with “V for Vendetta.” Both movies work perfectly on their own, and maybe if you put both together, they could lead to an interesting result. But combining both projects only lessens their value in a case like this.

Although given time to marinate, the movie presents two different tones that ultimately fit their respective narratives by the end. And the more I ponder, it gives me a good idea as to how this film’s main duo tends to see the world. In the back of Leila’s mind, she will do anything to embrace the fun and spontaneity of life. She will do anything to have a good time. She will do anything to keep herself happy. Meanwhile we see another story with her mother as the center where I am getting the sense that having fun may not be the top priority, and fun would only get in the way of what she thinks is important. But it is also shepherded by what these two have on their plate at their respective times of their lives.

The other thing I really appreciated about the movie is that it kind of gave me perspective as someone who is of similar age to Leila, who serves as the film’s protagonist. It reminded me that nobody is perfect. I often think about my parents growing up and realize that maybe they have made choices in life that they either regret or maybe their parents did not always agree with, but maybe they stood by them regardless of the outcome. That is not to suggest those choices are a bad thing, because in the end, they ultimately make us who we are. What matters is how we conduct our lives moving forward for ourselves, in addition to the people around us. In the end, even if our choices end up being mistakes, life finds a way to make us happy.

To top off all of what I just said, “The Persian Version” has a marvelous ensemble that is led beautifully by a mother-daughter duo played by Niousha Noor and Layla Mohammadi respectively. Both individuals are perfectly cast and play off each other very well. The family itself offers plenty of moments to enjoy. I thought Leila’s grandmother, Mamanjoon, was a highlight of the film. She also had my favorite line of the film that comes into play a couple times. It got a good laugh out of me. When it comes to slice of life-style films, “The Persian Version” gets plenty of things right, but it is not without its flaws. But would I watch it again? Perhaps so. It is by far one of the most unique movies of the year and if you are looking for something beyond the traditions of filmmaking, this is a decent option.

In the end, “The Persian Version” showcases the beauty of life, all the while highlighting problems that its core woman characters have to face at certain times of their lives. No matter how big or small. The movie is kind of like life itself. It has its fun moments. It has its downer moments. But by the end, everything tends to come full circle. I think this is a creative, one of a kind feature that despite not getting a lot of attention at the box office for the past number of weeks, certainly had mine. I am going to give “The Persian Version” a 7/10.

“The Persian Version” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! My next review is going to be for “Priscilla!” I got the chance to watch this film at the beginning of the month. It has been on my mind for quite a bit. I cannot wait to talk about it. Also coming soon, I have reviews coming for “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes” and “The Marvels.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Persian Version?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite mother-daughter relationship in film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dumb Money (2023): A True Story Rich in Humor and Stars

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dumb Money” is directed by Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya, Cruella) and stars Paul Dano (The Batman, The Fabelmans), Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Vincent D’Onofrio (Daredevil, Full Metal Jacket), America Ferrera (Barbie, How to Train Your Dragon), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Sebastian Stan (Captain America: The First Avenger, I, Tonya), Shailene Woodley (Divergent, Big Little Lies), and Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party). This film is inspired by Ben Mezrich’s “The Antisocial Network,” a book based on true events. The story of “Dumb Money” captures ordinary people subverting the expectations of Wall Street and turning GameStop into the hottest company on the stock market.

I never got involved in the stock market in any capacity throughout my life. It is just something I have never gotten around to. But even as someone who has never gotten involved, there were times in 2021 where I could not scroll through social media without seeing something related to GameStop, or heck, even AMC Theatres. Both companies were the talks of the town at the time because a ton of people kept buying their stock, and on the surface, it felt like an ongoing joke, but for some people, it was more than that. This is a fascinating story. Therefore, I was surprised, but also delighted, that people were making a movie of this caliber on it as soon as they were. On the surface, the cast is fantastic. Many of them either had recent roles that were highlights of their respective works or have maintained careers that have kept my attention for a long time.

When I think of the GameStop stock story, part of me wants to laugh about it. I mean, come on! It is a physical media company that is as much the butt of the joke as it is synonymous with its own industry. If you live in an area where used game stores are a rarity, chances are you will, even with recent closures, have a GameStop or two within close distance. I am a GameStop customer and shop there multiple times a year. I don’t think all their business practices are great, but they usually provide a decent experience if you are looking for something in particular. In fact, I almost ended up working for GameStop in my teens. Having seen this film, I realize that as much as it highlights the people who are investing in GameStop, it is not afraid to joke about some of the things the company has done. Additionally, “Dumb Money” seems to satirize retail environments in general. I previously worked in retail. Not at GameStop, but still. And this kind of took me back in a way. One of my favorite segments of the movie is this bond between a GameStop employee and their boss. Each scene between them got a laugh out of me. This movie highlights, as I previously knew, the fact that GameStop remained open during the pandemic as an essential business. Sure, it sold certain technologies that people often used during the pandemic, but it is far from the most essential of businesses.

My favorite dig this movie does towards the large gaming chain is when they reference the idea of employees doing a TikTok dance challenge as part of a company contest. This is true by the way. The moment I heard that joke, I was in shock, and then in amazement. Because I nearly forgot that happened. Or more specifically, that it almost did. For those who don’t know, GameStop proposed a challenge to its employees to dance to a song on TikTok in the hopes of achieving extra hours on Black Friday week. This is the thing I love about “Dumb Money,” it is a film that balances humor and respect towards its subject matter. But at the end of the day, it is also a film that tells marvelous tales of underdogs.

There are several underdogs in this movie, and their stories are all compelling. In fact, one of those underdogs is a GameStop employee played by Anthony Ramos. If I did not suggest it already, I enjoyed his presence in the film and his character was well written. Meanwhile you have a couple college students trying to strike it rich. Both of whom are wonderfully played by Myha’la Herrold and Talia Ryder. On another side of the spectrum is a struggling nurse named Jenny, played by America Ferrera, whose presence oozed of charisma every moment she was on screen. But at the center of it all is Keith Gill, who spends his off time from his job on the Internet talking about stocks and Wall Street. The working man and family background of this character made him a compelling protagonist, in addition to Paul Dano’s acting method.

I like all the characters in “Dumb Money,” and I must say the antagonists of the film, specifically those more connected with Wall Street such as Seth Rogen’s Gabe Plotkin, are also fun to watch. At times, this movie basically spitballs who to root for, which is not a hard thing for me to do considering the personality traits and backbones of the antagonists. But there is one scene that perhaps over-embellishes the necessity to root against Gabe. This movie is set during the early-ish days of the COVID-19 pandemic. And one of the earliest things we learn about Gabe is that he and his family now own a new place in Florida so they could party hard during the pandemic. I was, and still am to a degree, one of those people who takes the recent events of the pandemic seriously. I am not perfect, but I still keep everything about it in the back my mind. I remember when the pandemic first started, my family and I had to balance our finances because of the way the economy flipped on its head. And I was primarily concerned about getting my grandparents sick. Meanwhile, this guy is more concerned about being able to party like an animal. The difference here is obvious.

“Dumb Money” is one of those stories that highlights the divide between classes. You have Wall Street up at the top and people like Keith Gill, who is not poor, but making chump change in comparison. It shows how even people at the top feel like they might not have enough despite their enormous success. Meanwhile, this GameStop story, whether it will be remembered more as a triumph for people outside Wall Street or as a silly meme that caught a lot of people’s attention, shows that there may be room for regular people when it comes to striking it big on the stock market. This is a story set in recent times that often delivers humor highlighting said times. I am wondering how well this movie is going to age as a comedy because some of its humor is COVID-driven, but there are plenty of other jokes emitting a more timeless feel to balance it out. “Dumb Money” is very funny, entertaining, and brings out a heck of a story. Before this movie, I looked at the GameStop stock trend as a silly fad, but this movie presents it as something more. And that’s probably the best thing about it. It added depth to this subject for me that I was not expecting. A job well done is in order to everyone involved with this movie.

In the end, “Dumb Money” is rich in excellence. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but when it comes to comedy, this movie has a ton of laughs, and as a drama, it is way more compelling than it needs to be. It presents all these individual stories from different walks of life and makes one big, masterful connection out of all of them. “Dumb Money” is neither short on stars or chuckles. Go check it out if you get a chance. I am going to give “Dumb Money” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned because I have reviews coming for “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon!” But in addition to those reviews, I have my last review of the Ridley Scottober series dropping this week. If you want to read my reviews in the series so far, you can check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World.” As for this last review coming up, I must claim it is a big one. I am talking about “Blade Runner!” Make sure you check out these reviews, past and future, when you get a chance! And you can do so by following Scene Before either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dumb Money?” What did you think about it? Or, do you shop at GameStop? If not, what is your gaming store of choice? Do you even play video games? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

All the Money in the World (2017): Ridley Scott’s Mildly Thrilling Work Featuring Captivating (Non Kevin-Spacey) Performances

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the third installment of the Ridley Scottober review series! It is a series where I will be talking about four Ridley Scott-directed films throughout the month of October. If you are interested in my first two reviews of the series, feel free to check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies” and “Gladiator.” The movie I am talking about today shares something in common with the last two I talked about. The fact that I have never seen it until now. That film in particular is “All the Money in the World,” whose name I have ton when it came out for a number of reasons. Now that I have finally gotten a chance to see what everyone is talking about, it is time to share my review.

“All the Money in the World” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Martian) and stars Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn, Manchester by the Sea), Christopher Plummer (Up, Beginners), Mark Wahlberg (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Patriots Day), and Romain Duris (L’Auberge Espagnole, The Beat That My Heart Skipped). This film is based on the events surrounding the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III, whose grandfather is the world’s richest private citizen, J. Paul Getty Sr.. When the kidnappee’s mother is unable to hand over $17 million for her son’s freedom, she does what she can to convince Getty Sr. to provide the money.

When it comes to Ridley Scott, he is usually a name that would get me in the theater. If he were sitting in the director’s chair, there is a good chance I am there. Granted that is not always true as I did not have a ton of interest in “House of Gucci” when it came out, but nevertheless. One of the reasons why I am very much looking forward to his next film, “Napoleon,” is because he is helming it. But when it comes to “All the Money in the World,” there is a particular name that was on my mind, even years after this film came out. But maybe not for the reasons the people behind this movie would desire. That name, is Kevin Spacey.

Ah… Kevin Spacey. How the mighty have fallen. A couple wrong moves in life and here you are. Your relevance is about as tiny as bacteria. Now this review is being done as part of a Ridley Scott series, and I will not deny that I was partially intrigued by this film because Scott’s name was attached to it. But if I were in the general audience months before this film’s release, there is a solid chance that Kevin Spacey would have gotten me in the door. I thought he was good actor with a decent resume. In fact, he just did “Baby Driver” earlier in the year, an incredible action flick with pristinely executed sequences and a killer soundtrack. Before this movie came out, all of his footage was shot, and he was going to play J. Paul Getty Sr.. Sounds interesting, right?

Well, fast forward to October 2017. News comes out reporting Kevin Spacey’s sexual misconduct allegations, and therefore “All the Money in the World” is in a world of hurt. Kevin Spacey was supposed to be a centerpiece of the film’s campaign, especially considering the arrival of awards season. AFI Fest was around the corner, and the movie was supposed to premiere there. That premiere was canceled, and everyone went back to work on the film. Kevin Spacey was recast with Christopher Plummer, and they shot his scenes over the course of nine days. I think this whole behind the scenes aspect is the highlight of the film. I am a production junkie. I work in production so I may be biased. But I know a thing or two about how hard it is to do something last minute, but if done right, the results can present themselves as fantastic.

Now if you pay close attention to the movie, and I did not know this upon my watch, there is one shot in the film that features Kevin Spacey getting off a train. The reason for that is because it would have been too expensive to redo. All the rest are of Christopher Plummer. I was amazed at this movie’s quick turnaround, even if the people behind it admit they could not achieve perfection.

I do not know what Kevin Spacey’s performance was like in this film, and frankly I do not care. What we got from everyone onboard was great. The recently mentioned Christopher Plummer, Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, and Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher) all knocked their portrayals out of the park. All of them bring something exciting to the table with their characters and I cannot see anyone else, including Kevin Spacey, playing them. One of the reasons why Ridley Scott himself is a solid director is because he always manages to bring the best out of his talent. My favorite performance of 2015, and I sincerely apologize to the great Academy Award-winning Leonardo DiCaprio of “The Revenant” when I say this, is Matt Damon as Mark Watney in “The Martian.” Damon not only highlighted a constant survival instinct within his character from scene one, but did so with a sense of humor that I could only describe as irreplaceable. “All the Money in the World” clearly delivers different vibes, it is more dramatic, more serious, and LITERALLY more down to earth. “All the Money in the World” does a superb job at putting me into a world where we have all these people who would be hard to relate to 100% of the time, and yet I could sit in a room with them as a fly on the wall, intrigued by their actions.

But just because I am jumping up and down about the acting in “All the Money in the World,” does not mean it captivated me from beginning to end. There are moments of the movie that are more thrilling than others. There are moments where I had to struggle to pay attention. And there are also moments where I almost tuned out entirely. The movie is not bad, but much like “Body of Lies,” there is a certain spice that I wanted out this film that I could not quite achieve. It feels like I am going back to my watch of another thriller of his, “Body of Lies.” I think “All the Money in the World” is a better film with a more compelling story, fewer cliches up the wazoo, and more interesting characters. But if there is one thing both films have in common, there are select scenes in the film that had that had a greater span of my attention than others.

If there is another thing to note about “All the Money in the World,” it looks beautiful. The production designer for “All the Money in the World” is Arthur Max, who has worked a ton with Scott in the past on films like “Gladiator,” “Black Hawk Down,” and even as recent as “The Martian.” The two go hand in hand. Speaking of Scott’s usual suspects, the cinematography is done by Dariusz Wolski. He previously worked on “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “The Martian,” and even “Alien: Covenant” which released months before this movie hit theaters. The lighting and framing make for a consistently perfect pair throughout “All the Money in the World.” There is a wide shot in Rome from the first few minutes that I wanted as a desktop photo. It is that good.

As a story, despite the film’s pacing issues, some characters standing out more than others, and select scenes not having as much of a pop as I would prefer, I am glad we got to see it. I think the movie presents a fascinating moral about wealth, and how even when you are rich, you feel that there is no breaking point. There are probably more people out there than we think that will put their riches before their family. I will not deny that having money is nice. And I am not going to pretend that I have as much as Christopher Plummer’s character. I found it fascinating, and kind of depressing, how his character seemed to think saving someone in his family was not worth even just a small portion of his wealth. J. Paul Getty Sr. stands out way more than he should as a character given all the controversy surrounding this film, but I guarantee that regardless of who is playing him, he is probably the character that would stand out most in the story, for good reason. But of course, at the risk of beating a dead horse, Christopher Plummer does an excellent job in the role.

In the end, “All the Money in the World” is not my favorite of Scott’s works. But much like “Body of Lies,” it stands as a film that I think a lot of people would kill to make. But if I have to be real with you, I think the history of this movie is more interesting than the movie itself. If it were not for all the controversy, this would just be a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library. But with the way things are, it is a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library with notable complications that came up around its release. It is not something I plan on watching a second time, but it is a film that I do not regret putting on. The performances are all standouts, the camerawork is some of the finest of its year, and when it comes down to it, it is an intriguing study of how wealth can affect people. Yes, at times it is a chore to watch, I will not deny that. But I think you would not be doing yourself any harm if you decide to check it out. I am going to give “All the Money in the World” a very high and generous 6/10.

“All the Money in the World” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on various streaming services.

Thanks for reading this review! My final Ridley Scottober review arrives next week, and unlike the ones I have done so far, it is for a film I have seen.

Many times, actually.

For the final Ridley Scottober review, I am going to be talking about “Blade Runner,” the 1982 science fiction classic! It is a film that I have mentioned and talked about many times on Scene Before, but after many years of blogging here, I finally get to do a proper review of it. Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “All the Money in the World?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could replace any actor or actress in any movie in the history of time with Christopher Plummer, which one would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Gran Turismo (2023): Proof That Video Games Are Not Always Bad For You

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Gran Turismo” is directed by Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Chappie) and stars David Harbour (Black Widow, Violent Night), Orlando Bloom (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring), Archie Madekwe (Heart of Stone, Midsommar), Darren Barnet (Love Hard, Never Have I Ever), Geri Halliwell Horner (Foggy Nation, Spice World), and Djimon Hounsou (Shazam!, Guardians of the Galaxy). This film shares its name with the well-known PlayStation-exclusive video game franchise, and centers around a group of people who organize and participate in a racing event dedicated to taking people who play “Gran Turismo” and putting them behind the wheel of real racecars. This is also based on true events.

Ever since I was a kid, I loved racing games. I grew up playing “Hot Wheels” titles on various consoles. I have racked up plenty of hours on “Mario Kart,” and “Need for Speed: Underground 2” remains one my favorite games of all time. Despite my love for the genre, I have never played “Gran Turismo.” That said, I was rather curious about this film from the getgo. Partially because we have been seeing in recent years that video game movies have been getting better, even if it is by the most minute of a difference. Recently we have had the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies, which have been decent. Despite its flaws, I had fun watching the recent “Mortal Kombat” reboot. Even with some departures from the games, that film delivered a gore factor the 1990s films did not provide. I also thought “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” while not the greatest definition of the word cinema, had glimmers of joy even if it relied on too many familiar beats. Both from a storytelling and nostalgia perspective.

The other reason why “Gran Turismo” excited me is because it was based on true events. This begs the question as to whether one should actually call this a video game-based movie, to which you can point in either direction. It is not a story based on the game itself, but it significantly uses the games to further the plot.

Speaking of the story, when it comes to “Gran Turismo,” the script is full of cliches and familiar beats. This can be a negative given the predictability factor of the film, but I sometimes say that having these beats are not always bad when you consider how they are used sometimes. If anything, “Gran Turismo” reminded me a bit of Pixar’s “Cars.” While they are not the same movie, they have similar protagonists in terms of their motivation, and both films tend to cruise down familiar roads. But the way both films do so allow for a well-executed narrative.

Speaking of cliches, one of them involves the protagonist trying to win over his love interest, and I honestly admire the way this movie goes about it. The main character is obviously on the younger side, and the way he admires his crush, at least for what we see, is through social media, specifically Instagram. I think the way this display is handled happens to be beautifully modern and kind of relatable. And by the time we get to the actual romance aspect of the film where we put two people in the same room, it is kind of cute. I like the main couple together. Archie Madekwe and Maeve Courtier-Lilley have solid chemistry.

If I have any core problems with the film, it is that it at times almost comes off as a commercial. Sure, we have seen movies in recent years that could double as commercials like “The LEGO Movie” and “Barbie,” but they did enough to make me feel like I was watching a good movie as opposed to something that was forcing me to buy something else. If the movie got me to buy a “Gran Turismo” game, that is not a problem. That is a sign that the movie is good enough to get me into the franchise. But at times, it almost serves more as a commercial for Nissan than a movie. When I was watching “Ford v Ferrari” several years ago, I did not think of it as a commercial for the Ford brand and instead I thought of it as a good story about accomplishing something monumental. Okay, well, I did buy a Ford in 2022, so… Who knows? Nevertheless, “Gran Turismo” serves as a fine story too, but I almost feel like it is trying to get me to buy a Nissan product every time the logo is shoved in my face.

Oh, and of course, this is a Sony movie, therefore Sony has plenty of product placement material for itself. In fact, there is a scene in this film that could have been all the more sentimental and charming if it were not in this movie, or if I did not know anything about product placement. There is a subplot in the film regarding the way David Harbour’s character, Jack Salter, listens to music. He uses an analog tape player, it kind of becomes a trademark for him at a point. There is a moment later in the film where Jann gives Jack a Walkman. I am all for promotion. But there comes a point where certain things cross the line. This is one of those times where the line is crossed. Thankfully though, the movie is still good enough to the point where the product placement does not bog everything down.

At its core, “Gran Turismo” is a classic underdog story. The protagonist, in this case Jann Mardenborough, wants to be a pro racer despite that idea coming off as a near impossibility. He has his doubters, including he people who recruit him to take on his dream, who are even doubted themselves for organizing their event in the first place. Just to be clear, other than mini golf, I have never gone golfing in my entire life. And let’s face it, just because I can hold my own in Wii Sports golf does not mean I will be joining the PGA anytime soon. But if there is one thing I love about the movie “Gran Turismo,” it shows that maybe video games do not rot the brain in a way that a lot of people suggest. Because the idea behind the program this movie revolves around is to take people who professionally play one of the most realistic racing simulators and put them in real racing machines. One thing I remember about being a kid is that I played a lot of NBA 2K. In conjunction with that, I would also shoot a lot of hoops on a court across the street from my house. Looking back, I feel that because I often did one of those things, I kept doing the other, and vice versa.

If I have to be real, I was never once bored with “Gran Turismo.” Even in moments where I felt like I was watching a film I probably could have come across years ago, I had a blast. When it comes to racing films, this is not the pinnacle of the concept, but it certainly drags miles ahead of what “Fast & Furious” has been doing lately. It is full of good performances across the board. David Harbour in particular shines as Jack Salter. The race scenes are often exciting and thrilling. By the end, I was rooting for Jann. I was hoping he would succeed. If “Gran Turismo” counts as a video game movie, I guess you can say it is one of the better video game movies out there.

In the end, “Gran Turismo” is one of the better films released over the summer. I think as far as the PlayStation-inspired films go, this is definitely a step up from “Uncharted.” If we keep getting some movies from PlayStation Productions that are on this level, or higher, they are heading in the right direction. That said, if this trend were to continue, I hope that we would get less of Sony’s product placement up the wazoo. That would have to be my biggest distraction in an otherwise solid movie. I am not entirely against product placement. Even some of the better Sony movies in recent years like “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” and even more recently, “Bullet Train,” feature Sony products in what could also be described as a commercialistic manner. But I don’t usually think about that when I think of those movies. Because those movies are good enough to the point where the product placement does not distract me, and even when it happens, it does not feel like it is in my face. I get it, money talks. But there is a drawing line. This is the same reason why I ended up hating “Space Jam: A New Legacy” a couple years back. I am going to give “Gran Turismo” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Meg 2: The Trench,” “Bottoms,” and “A Haunting in Venice.” 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 “Gran Turismo?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a way that video games have influenced your life? It can be positive or negative, either way works. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

No Hard Feelings (2023): A Hot Hot Hot Summer on Long Island

Posted on by Jack Drees

“No Hard Feelings” is directed by Gene Stupnitsky (Bad Teacher, Good Boys) and stars Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games, Joy), Andrew Barth Feldman (A Tourist’s Guide to Love, High School Musical: The Musical: The Series), Laura Benanti (Nashville, The Detour), Natalie Morales (The Grinder, Abby’s), and Matthew Broderick (Election, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off). This film is about a woman whose car breaks down and will do anything to receive a new one. Anything. Even date the brains out of a 19 year old. When the 32 year old woman finds this 19 year old man undateable, chaos, hilarity, and awkwardness ensues.

If you have been looking at some of the movies coming out this summer, you would notice that some have unusual or unique marketing campaigns. If you go on YouTube, Universal is airing a year-long countdown to “Oppenheimer.” “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” director Christopher McQuarrie alongside star Tom Cruise started a trend of buying movie tickets for their competition all the while promoting their own film. Barbie director Greta Gerwig and star Margot Robbie followed suit showing off their own tickets on social media. Although there is one marketing campaign that also caught my attention, that being the one for “No Hard Feelings.” In addition to the funny red band trailer, Sony and crew took advantage of billboards to not necessarily promote the movie, but put up an ad promoting a car, specifically this one that says NEED A CAR? “DATE” OUR SON. The head-turning ad of course was not real, but rather a potential boost for the “No Hard Feelings” movie. I saw that ad occasionally on a billboard by I-93 on the way to work. The ad also presents the fascinatingly taboo concept of the film. Specifically, Maddie, a 32 year old woman, must “date” Percy, a 19 year old boy, to get the car she is after.

This is not the first time this decade where we had a lead couple with a bit of an age gap in cinema, as Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Licorice Pizza” had a 25 year old woman dating a 15 year old boy. Although the biggest difference between these two films is that I actually found “No Hard Feelings” to be a fine use of my time. I know a lot of people enjoyed “Licorice Pizza.” It is competently made. But I found the characters to be unlikable, most notably Gary Valentine. I found him to be creepy and power hungry and it did not sit well with me. A romcom is only as good as its two romantically involved leads, and I think Jennifer Lawrence and Andrew Barth Feldman make for a great pair.

When I wrote my “Licorice Pizza” review, I addressed the age gap between the two leads, but I also said that if Gary Valentine were 18 years old, that would make the romantic connection between them more palatable. In this film, Percy is, again, 19, which makes him a legal adult. Despite being 13 years apart from Maddie, I think their connection, while taboo, is not outright uncomfortable or obscene because it is by all accounts, fair game according to U.S. law. Sure, it is 3 more years apart than the leads in “Licorice Pizza,” but still.

That said, I think both leads are not only great in this film, I almost cannot imagine anyone else playing their characters. Jennifer Lawrence is perfectly cast as this down on her luck individual who just so happens to have a bit of a potty mouth. The casting only makes sense because Lawrence was raised to be tough, there is an interview where she was supposed to drop as many swears as she could to raise money for charity. That toughness is often exuded from Maddie, who tries to change Percy for what she thinks is for the better. She observes Percy, listens to him, and comes to the conclusion that his helicopter parents have had a tremendous influence on his day to day life. He does not take any risks, lacks confidence, and has no experience with partying or letting himself loose. He is kind of a pariah. He kind of reminds me of my younger self in some ways as I was, and kind of still am a reserved dork (though I have my moments of extroversion).

Though I was also pleasantly surprised to see how much I enjoyed this film’s portrayal of Percy’s parents. Laura Benanti and Matthew Broderick play their parts with excellence. Both of them have their moments of levity, but do not steal the spotlight from our lead duo. Speaking of the two leads, the way their romantic connection throttles the rest of the story only makes the presence of these parents all the better. This is especially true in the second act.

“No Hard Feelings” in some ways elicits the vibes of sex comedies like “Risky Business” and “The Graduate.” Much like “Risky Business,” there is a heavy part of the plot dedicated to a car. There is even, maybe in the greatest of coincidences…? A heavy part of the plot dedicated to Princeton University. The protagonist is transitioning from high school to college. The love interest, if you can call them that, propels the protagonist to change themselves to the point of making them appear more individualistic. “The Graduate” has a couple romantically-attached leads, both of whom are adults, who have quite the age gap as well. If I had to choose a film to watch on a Friday night, I would honestly pick either of those two. But there is a healthy mix of comedy and romance in this film, which is also the case with those two. “No Hard Feelings” feels surprisingly more intimate than its advertising lead me to believe, but that is not a bad thing because I bought into the chemistry between the two leads and they make it work.

I am not going to pretend “No Hard Feelings” is the funniest movie on the planet. In fact, without giving much away, as this pertains to a future review, it is not even the funniest movie I have seen in the past few weeks. But if you are looking for a romantic comedy that does a bit more than scratch the surface, “No Hard Feelings” gets the job done. I have no plans to see it again, but I am glad I saw it this once. If anything, I am glad we are getting movies like this to begin with. It is a movie that I went in expecting a hilarious dose of sex humor, which I ultimately got. But I also felt what was watching was surprisingly heartfelt. I like the two leads not only as an unlikely duo, but they are actually kind of cute together. As I said in the beginning, films like this one are as good as its romantically involved leads. If these two did not click, this would have been a hard watch, and the only feeling I would have acquired, was one of sickness.

In the end, “No Hard Feelings” checks a bunch of marks not only as a romcom, but also doubles as a coming of age story if you are viewing it from the perspective of Feldman. Yes, Jennifer Lawrence is the bigger name and much of the movie revolves around her journey, but it equally gives enough time to Feldman’s character to see where he takes him. I think Feldman, like Lawrence happens to be right now, is going to be a name to look out for. He is phenomenal in his role. “No Hard Feelings” works because not only these two leads are likable together, but as individuals. While the movie definitely presents Percy as shy and reserved, to the point of it being an extended joke, I found that shyness relatable at times because he reminded me of my teenage years. I did not get out much, I was never the life of the party, I had weird interests that stick with me today, and I never had much of a social life. Meanwhile, Maddie is just trying to get by each and every day. All she wants is a car. That’s all anyone living in a country with underfunded, neglected public transit ever wants. It goes to show that opposites attract and that we may be starting to get some genuinely good comedies again. Since the pandemic, I can only name a few straight up comedies that I remember laughing to on a consistent basis, and this is one of them. Yeah, I managed to witness some highlights like “Clerks III.” Sure, we have had funny films like “The Menu,” but to call it a comedy would be a bit of a stretch. Maybe it is a dark comedy, but I would put it somewhere between comedy and horror. It is nice to see more lighthearted fare, even if it contains filth. I am going to give “No Hard Feelings” a 7/10.

“No Hard Feelings” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Pixar’s “Elemental.” Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” “Joy Ride,” and “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “No Hard Feelings?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sex comedy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Machine (2023): A Barely Watchable Trip to Russia

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Machine” is directed by Peter Atencio (Key & Peele, Keanu) and stars Bert Kreischer as himself, of sorts. Joining him is a cast including Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Jimmy Tatro (Stuber, Home Economics), Iva Babić (The Last Serb in Croatia, Life Is a Trumpet), Stephanie Kurtzuba (The Wolf of Wall Street, Annie), and Jessica Gabor (Shameless, Grey’s Anatomy). This film is inspired by a stand-up routine and is about Bert Kreischer as he takes a trip to Russia, all the while continuously uncovering his past.

“The Machine” may have been the most last-minute purchase I have made as a moviegoer. I ended up going to see “The Machine” because I was at the theater with a friend to watch a press screening of “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” only to be denied entry because of a capacity limit. We decided, with the options given to us, to go see this instead. Despite my bitter attitude, I tried to wear off the aftertaste of defeat and go into this film, albeit minutes late, with a fresh mindset.

“The Machine” is this year’s “Easter Sunday.” For the few of you who remember that movie, it is essentially an hour and a half of Jo Koy playing a hyped up version of himself and taking his stand up routine to the big screen, to less than stellar results. Having seen a number of stand up scenarios, including a few in person, I have learned that the crazier and seemingly far-fetched the story, the more appealing it can sound. Hearing someone talk about their time in Russia while reconnecting the dots of their past as a hyperactive, upbeat, heavily worded story, can be entertaining. In fact, as far as a pitch goes, if I were pitched the backbone of the story for this film, there is a good chance that I would consider greenlighting it. Much like a film I talked about recently, “Hypnotic,” “The Machine” is examplifies how an interesting concept can be fumbled in the execution.

“The Machine” has some likable elements intact. There are some occasional funny lines, the production design stands out at times, and Mark Hamill manages to steal the show every once in a while as Albert. If I have to name a favorite character in the movie, it would be him. I may be biased because I love Mark Hamill, but seeing the angle of him given throughout the picture made his character all the more appealing. Despite seeing Mark Hamill as other characters, I always harken back to Luke Skywalker when thinking about him. Therefore, seeing him drugged up in one scene, not to mention playing the part like a champ, caught me totally off guard. If there is any reason you should pay the price of admission for “The Machine,” Mark Hamill would have to be it. Everything else pales in comparison.

Another similarity I found between “The Machine” and “Easter Sunday” is that like Jo Koy, Bert Kreischer is a comedian I know very little about. But I have come to recognize that he has his fans. Having seen Jo Koy in “Easter Sunday,” I thought he was likable enough to the point where I would not watch a sequel to that film, but maybe I would go see him live and see how he does with that. I try to keep an open mind as often as I can, so maybe I would say the same about Bert Kreischer. A comedian, he may be. An actor, he is not. It is not to say he gives the worst performance I have ever seen, but after seeing Kreischer play an alternate version of his persona, I do not know if he has the strength to carry many productions down the road as a lead. In fact, having a more experienced actor like Mark Hamill play as significant of a character as he does here probably helps in some of the more important scenes to make everything feel a tad more immersive and realistic.

Kreischer faces the problem I feel a number of other comedians face, such as Kevin Hart or Kevin James, where they end up failing to disguise themselves and blend into the role they are given. To be fair, their material is often based in some form of reality and once you start typecasting a person, it is hard to stop. The difference between Kreischer and these two Kevins is that I have seen the Kevins in various productions over the years (and in standup, coincidentally), so inklings of themselves and their past characters will often show up in roles they take on down the road. Kreischer has minimal experience as an actor, and having seen this film, it kind of shows. He is in a word, serviceable. Nothing more, nothing less. That said, I am open to seeing him in another movie, but I doubt he will have any chances at an Academy Award in the next few decades.

If I had any other standout compliments to give to “The Machine” as a movie, I have to say I was delightfully surprised with some of the editing choices. “The Machine” has a quick, snappy pace to it, and a lot of the choices in the film’s edit reflect that. There are multiple creative uses of text and graphics. While this film may not have the most revolutionary jokes or action sequences, that is something I found myself delighted to see pop as much as it did.

Adaptations are everywhere you look these days. People often point out certain ideas that are originally made as books, video games, board games, and sometimes those ideas have a distinction of being “unfilmable.” While I have yet to see any of Bert Kreischer’s standup material, I can imagine his story about his time in Russia is ten times funnier as a standup routine. Similar to how some will claim a book is better than a movie, something interesting about standup is how it can often leave certain details up to the imagination. Sometimes visuals are involved, but it is usually a person talking onstage with a microphone. It is as simple as it gets, but it is the definition of turning nothing into something. “The Machine” takes that something and adds a lot more to it. One could argue that there may be an overabundance of something. This has helped Bert Kreischer build a fanbase based on his comedy. He could shock me in time, but for now, he should probably stick to that craft in particular.

In the end, “The Machine” is not offensive, nor is it a masterpiece. But to call it fine would be generous. I was not expecting much from this movie, but on the topic of expectations, I do not expect myself to watch “The Machine” again. Average comedy and okay action are not enough to make a good movie. There are plenty of other movies to watch in theaters right now, those might be better uses of your money at this time. I am going to give “The Machine” a 5/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! You guys are about to get spoiled! Do not worry, I am not going to ruin “The Flash” for you, but that is one of the many reviews I have coming soon! In addition I will also be reviewing “The Blackening,” “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts,” “No Hard Feelings,” and “Elemental.” I will also be attending an early screening of “Ruby Gilman, Teenage Kraken” on Saturday, so whenever I am able to review that film, I will share my thoughts on that as well. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Machine?” What did you think about it? Or, who is your favorite comedian? One of my favorites right now, is one I have tickets to see in Boston in November, specifically Jimmy Carr. He is raunchy, dark, and knows his way around an epic comeback. Let me know your favorite comedian down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023): The Citizen Kane of Comic Book Movies

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is directed by Joaquim Dos Santos (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Voltron: Legendary Defender), Kemp Powers (Soul, One Night in Miami…), and Justin K. Thompson (LittleBigPlanet, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs). This film stars Shameik Moore (Dope, Incredible Crew), Hailee Steinfeld (The Edge of Seventeen, Hawkeye), Brian Tyree Henry (Godzilla vs. Kong, Bullet Train), Luna Lauren Vélez (Dexter, New York Undercover), Jake Johnson (New Girl, Let’s Be Cops), Jason Schwartzmann (Rushmore, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Issa Rae (Little, Insecure), Karan Soni (Miracle Workers, Deadpool), Daniel Kaluuya (Nope, Get Out), and Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Moon Knight). This film is the sequel to “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” and follows Miles Morales as he faces conflict through his personal life, while balancing his time as his superhero persona. Meanwhile, he is introduced to the Spider Society, a realm of Spider-people just like him, where he must realize his true purpose.

“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” has had an interesting history in the realm of comic book movies. The film did well with critics and fans alike. But it did not garner as much box office revenue as its live-action counterparts. It was not a complete loss, as it grossed $384.3 million against a budget of $90 million, but the individual films starring Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland, all ended up making more. To be fair though, animated comic book movies were an unfamiliar territory in the theatrical market, not everyone knew who Miles Morales was compared to Peter Parker, and the film was already competing other blockbuster titles at the time including “Mary Poppins Returns,” “Bumblebee,” and DC’s “Aquaman,” which turned out to be the comic giant’s biggest hit.

That said, it does not change the fact that many people continue to hail “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” as one of the greatest comic book films of all time. I personally consider it a slight runner-up in 2018’s slate to “Avengers: Infinity War,” but it was a solid animation whose strengths came from its quick pacing, likable characters, intriguing storyline, and maybe the most unique animation style of the decade. I loved it in theaters, watched it a couple times at home, and find it to be one of the more refreshing animated titles to come out in recent years. I was pleasantly surprised to find out Sony Pictures Animation knocked this film out of the park after the gosh awful “The Emoji Movie.” Between “The LEGO Movie” and “Spider-Verse,” Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are partially responsible for some of the most memorable animations of the 2010s.

Naturally, I got excited when a “Spider-Verse” sequel was announced, which with the release of a trailer in 2021, received the title “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse – Part One.” Since then, it has removed the “Part One,” but the concept remains the same. I thought if we got more of what the original provided, we would be in for another great time at the movies, but little did I know what I would be in for.

To clarify, “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” delivers the same strengths as its predecessor, but it also brings forth tons of new elements. Between the added animation styles, the Spider Society, new characters, and the expansion of the multiverse’s lore, there is a lot to love about this sequel, and I mean it when I say that. Not only do I find “Across the Spider-Verse” to be a step up from its predecessor. Not only do I find it to be one of the best movies of the year. Not only do I find it to be one of the best animated movies of all time. Not only do I find it to be one of the best comic book movies of all time. I think this movie falls into my top 20 or 10 movies EVER.

When it comes to superheroes, Spider-Man has always been my personal favorite. Mainly because of how I would often find myself in the shoes of Peter Parker as he tries to balance everything in his life. Granted, I do not have the same responsibility of protecting a major metropolitan area, but that is what makes the character likable in addition to his down to earth qualities. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” like its predecessor, instead focuses on the problems and life of Miles Morales, who much like the recently mentioned Parker, has to neverendingly deal with the problems of being a teen while also saving New York. Whenever I see Miles, he reminds me of my own life as I grew up. There are moments where I hear him talk and it reminds me of how much I wanted to either be by myself or take a chance to spread my wings a little.

In addition, throughout the film, we get a greater dive into Miles’s relationship with his mom, Rio. While we still get the connection between Miles and his dad that has defined the first film in a way, Rio has more of a presence in this picture. She has more of an impact on where things go compared to before. What captivated me is not only the chemistry she and Miles have, but the dialogue that supplements these two in their scenes. I always got a sense that Rio wanted what is best for Miles even if there is a disconnect between the two. But even in the moments where Rio would end up losing her mind over something Miles did, I am still rooting for Miles because I always got the sense that he was just trying his best to balance everything he can. These are emotionally complex, rich characters who I am glad I got to see in this film and hope to see more of in the future.

This movie handles multiverse a tad differently than “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” which does so in a way that serves as a love letter to the character. This movie also serves as a love letter at times, and each time that is done, it works. That said, the more I thought about “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” it can also be seen as a jab on formula, a jab on traditional storytelling. But at the same time it could also serve as a tribute to it. There is a certain aspect of the film that dives into Miles’s destiny, in addition to the destiny of other Spider-people. As this is addressed, I could not help but recognize how such familiar tropes worked and we may similarly see something that could eternally impact Miles no matter which path he follows. At the same time, Miles wants to avoid facing a certain destiny that may seem familiar to audiences and the many Spideys this film possesses. That adds to the unpredictability of this film. I could name quite a few moments in this film where I was taken aback by what was on screen. There are so many things going on in “Across the Spider-Verse,” much of which just so happens to be colossally epic.

Part of why I found “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” rather unpredictable as it went along is not only from how the film itself is laid out, but Miles’s overall connection with Miguel O’Hara. There is a scene in the trailers where Miguel presents a certain dilemma to Miles regarding the fate of other people. When Miles takes that conflict in a certain direction, the rest of the film delivers a flavor to it that I have not seen in a comic book-based story prior to this one.

That said, part of that flavor represents a tonal shift from one film to the next. If things go in a certain direction, the “Spider-Verse” trilogy may be this generation’s version of the original “Star Wars” trilogy. I am not saying they have completely similar stories, but from a technical perspective, both movies brought something innovative to the table. Both have a first film that follows that typical hero’s journey formula. The films are great for all ages. And sticking with the tonal shift, I would say that “Across the Spider-Verse” has the shocks, goosebumps, and occasional gloom of “The Empire Strikes Back.” There is a lot of fun to be had in “Across the Spider-Verse,” but once the film reaches the halfway mark, its sullenness dramatically increases. When this movie ended, I was excited to know what could happen in the eventual “Beyond the Spider-Verse,” but I also recognized that much like “Empire,” “Across the Spider-Verse” does not end on the highest note. This is not a bad thing because I am rooting for the heroes even more than I was before.

If you are a “Spider-Man” fan, you will adore this movie. If you are not as interested in other iterations of “Spider-Man,” I think you may still find something to love about how this movie handles its storytelling methods. This is far from your typical comic book movie. This is also far from some of your typical animated fare. Despite this movie earning a PG rating, it is honestly very adult at times. There is some mild language, mature themes, and most of the humor avoids gearing itself specifically for younger crowds. I honestly think like some Pixar films, there is a chance that if you are parent and end up taking your kids to see “Across the Spider-Verse,” you might end up liking it more than them. Maybe it will end up aging for some kids in the same way “Wall-E” aged for me. When I first saw the film at eight years old, I was enamored with the spectacle and adventure of it all. Then as I aged I began to appreciate the lessons it told and the “show don’t tell” method it employs. I think if some young children end up liking “Across the Spider-Verse” the first time they see it, they might carry it into adulthood and recognize how powerful that film is in a different way. It is more than just cool action and funny jokes. If I were eight years old I might witness those two things and think that is enough to satisfy my appetite. But as a 23-year-old, I feel “Across the Spider-Verse” is about being your own person, appreciating your family in addition to your friends, dealing with potential failure, and realizing that everyone is just trying their best to live to fight another day. If you want to see a paint by numbers animation that takes no risks and plays it safe, then by all means watch “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” If you want to see an animation that takes risks, delivers something new, and expands an already exciting universe, or multiverse in this case, then “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is the movie for you.

This film is as close to perfect as it can get. If it were not for one thing, the movie would be even better. My one problem with “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is the sound mix. To be clear, the sound design in “Across the Spider-Verse” is great. It is a completely immersive movie in terms of audio. But at the beginning of the film and during one or two more increments, there are certain lines of dialogue I could not make out. If they turned down the music just a tad or increased Hailee Steinfeld’s audio as close as they can to avoid clipping, this problem may cease to exist. Maybe the movie will get the “Thor: Love and Thunder” treatment. Remember how that movie changed the CGI after its theatrical release? Perhaps this film could contain a slightly different sound mix before putting it out on digital and Blu-ray. Who knows? Although I say this is a slight dig because if I dilate my ears a little, I could make out what is being said, and even if I did not understand something, the visuals gave me enough context to know what is going on. Filmmaking is showing, not telling. And this film shows like few others do.

The first “Spider-Verse” is an achievement of the animation medium. This sequel takes that achievement the extra mile. That said, I am trying to be quite vague on how it does such things, because this movie is full of surprises, and I want you to go in as blind as I did to experience it to the fullest. If anyone reading this is experiencing what some may call “comic book movie fatigue,” I urge you to check out this film because it is likely to change your mind. If we keep getting movies like “Black Adam” or “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” that are below the par of some of the better titles the genre has delivered over the years, then I could see where the fatigue is coming from. It is coming from mediocrity and blandness. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” flips the entire genre on its head.

In the end, “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” has delivered something brilliant that I felt as if I have not seen before in this overstuffed genre. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is the “Citizen Kane” of comic book movies. In addition to being a fantastic watch that pushes its medium forward, I think this is going to be one of the most influential and talked about films of the genre for years, possibly decades to come. This is a film that not only takes what is great about the original and imports it here, but attempts to take that greatness to the next level. Sequels naturally have to go bigger than the original. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. The jump this franchise takes from one movie to the next is seismic. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” makes the original feel humble. And unlike say the transition from “The Matrix” to “The Matrix Reloaded,” the shift does not feel gimmicky. It is backed up by a good story, great characters, incredible dialogue, and animation that honestly looks better than what this franchise provided four and a half years ago. I rooted for the heroes, but I also sympathized for those who would be considered antagonists. There is not a character that comes to mind who I thought was not properly constructed. I have thought about this film long after I saw it. I found my experience to be overwhelming in the best possible ways. I walked out of the auditorium not believing what I just saw. And in a time where comic book movies dominate, “Spider-Man” movies come at you quicker than a bullet, and when sequels pop up all over, this feels like one of the most original, fresh films I have not just seen recently, but in my entire life. I need time to marinate where I rank this film amongst my favorites of all time. Maybe if I see it again, it would help. And yes, I do want to see it again soon. Therefore, I think it is inevitable that “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is a 10/10!

Also, what is it with multiverses lately? “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” which was set in different universes, was far and wide my favorite film of last year. Meanwhile, “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” also joins the ranks and has now become my top film of 2023. I hope people do not overuse the multiverse concept just because of these successful outings. If it is used in the future, I hope they try to implement what these movies did. Specifically, a developed story with likable characters. I hope people do not just do multiverse for the sake of being crazy. Story should come first, characters should come first, the craziness may as well be bonus points.

“Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews, I have some coming soon! Specifically for “Hypnotic,” “The Machine,” and “The Flash!” I ended up seeing a couple of these movies before “Spider-Verse,” but I could not contain myself. I had to talk about this movie before anything else. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” is a movie that if you asked me what to watch this weekend, I might pick that one for at least a month. It’s that good. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Spider-Man” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!