“Sentimental Value” is directed by Joachim Trier (The Worst Person in the World, Louder Than Bombs) and stars Renate Reinsve (Presumed Innocent, A Different Man), Stellan Skarsgård (Dune, Andor), Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (Women in Oversized Men’s Shirts, A Beautiful Life), and Elle Fanning (Maleficent, The Neon Demon). This film is about the relationship between a filmmaker and his two estranged daughters, which only becomes more complicated when one of them declines to be in a film based on their family’s history.
Of the many prestige titles coming out at the end of 2025, one of the names that eventually found its name somewhere on my must see list was “Sentimental Value.” The film’s trailer seemed to tap into its central family drama, making for a rather intriguing idea. I did not care that it had a couple big stars or acclaimed names behind the scenes, though such things happened to be a bonus. Though selling me on a movie is not enough, I wanted to dive deeper into what I was buying, and what I bought was a fulfilling experience that highlights the ups and downs that comes with making personal art. Or in this movie’s case, perhaps as close as one can get to personal art.
Few things in life are as important as a good first impression. And “Sentimental Value” brings forth a dynamite first impression. The movie starts off with some of the best narration I have heard in a long time. The opening scene of the film is narrated from the perspective of a young Nora, one of the two daughters who play a large role in the story, and it taps into the idea of whether her house was alive, or happened to be aware of everything happening on the inside. Things such as the memories being made as well as the wear and tear that was being done to it over time. The editing throughout the scene perfectly matches each thought and neatly sets up everything that happens after, considering how much of a role that house continues to play in the characters’ lives.
Despite the film being a Norwegian production, “Sentimental Value” at times feels more like something straight out of Hollywood. Part of it has to do with the film having recognizable cast members including Stellan Skarsgård, who kills it as Gustav. But there is also Elle Fanning, who plays Rachel Kemp, an American actress. Kemp ends up taking the role in which Gustav originally asked Nora to play in his film, and I thought her presence often did a great job at representing Gustav’s tendency to sell out for the sake of his project. There is a great scene where Nora is riding an escalator and we see endless screens playing the same ad of Kemp as she’s going up.
The events in “Sentimental Value” very much reflect its name. Much of the movie revolves around a family home. In fact, one of the things Gustav wanted to make happen in his movie was being able to shoot it at said house. While the film does not dive into Gustav’s entire resume, it is easy to assume that “Sentimental Value” is arguably Gustav’s most personal project yet considering he wants either someone or some place he knows in it. There is a saying that people should write what they know. There is also a saying that in filmmaking it is not a matter of what you know, and instead, who you know. While the latter can sometimes be seen as a negative in terms of allowing certain people a chance to find work, this movie does sometimes showcase the beauty and fun of working alongside family. For something like Gustav’s project, it only makes it more personal.
“Sentimental Value” is far from my favorite 2025 release. Though I do highly recommend seeing it, especially with someone you know. I had the privilege of seeing this film with a friend, and we had a pretty insightful discussion about it after. We knew a bit about each other so we were able to connect this movie to our lives. For example, throughout the film, we see that one of the differences between Nora and Agnes is that the latter has children. Of course, Nora gets the comment from her dad that having children is something she will not regret. That is an area in which the two seem to disagree. One of my favorite moments in the film is when Nora and Agnes are talking about the concept of having children, and Nora says while she does not have them, she said being Agnes’ big sister felt like being her parent. I am 26 years old, single, and do not have children. Frankly, I debate each and every day whether it is actually right for me to have children. And if my children read this years from now, please know, I am not saying this because I regret having you, or that I fear I will regret having you. But when I was younger, part of me felt like I was playing, to a certain extent, a fatherly role with my sister’s upbringing.
I was also pleasantly surprised to see the film’s occasional comedy chops. At its core, “Sentimental Value” is a drama, but it also weaves in some natural humor. Every instance of comedy felt more like something in the moment rather than a planned attempt to make people holler. One of my favorite moments of the film is getting to see Gustav explaining to Rachel the main idea for one of his film’s scenes involving a stool. When it is revealed that the story that inspired said scene was fabricated, the way that such a thing is done had me laughing. That said, whether the film goes into its more lighthearted laughable moments, its darker moments where we get some backstory, or the quite literally sentimental moments somewhere in between, it makes for one of 2025’s most compelling screenplays.
One final note about the film. While Netflix had no hand in producing or distributing “Sentimental Value,” I found it amusing how Gustav’s upcoming project was at one point going to be a Netflix movie. The film notes that this is not exactly Gustav’s first choice. Of course, one of the questions asked by the press about the movie is if it is going to be in theaters, to which I chuckled. Netflix’s refusal to put movies in theaters is astounding to me. By the way, as a reminder, please check out my reviews for “A House of Dynamite” and “Frankenstein,” two Netflix movies I saw in theaters this year, as much as they want me tied to my couch.
In the end. “Sentimental Value” is a completely inviting and moving package. It is film that showcases the importance of family while also diving into one’s personal struggles of being an artist. It balances both of these ideas perfectly and makes something beautiful out of both of them. Again, there are other films released this year I prefer, but I could see “Sentimental Value” having replay value somewhere down the line. I am going to give “Sentimental Value” a 7/10.
“Sentimental Value” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Zootopia 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery,” “Jay Kelly,” “Bugonia,” “No Other Choice,” and “Fackham Hall.” 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 “Sentimental Value?” What did you think about it? Or, would you ever want to make a movie based on your family’s history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Dune Part Two” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Wonka, Interstellar), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Greatest Showman), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Austin Butler (Elvis, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Florence Pugh (Black Widow, Don’t Worry Darling), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy, Blade Runner 2049), Christopher Walken (Catch Me if You Can, The Deer Hunter), Léa Seydoux (Crimes of the Future, Spectre), Souheila Yacoub (Making of, Climax), Stellan Skarsgård (Mamma Mia!, Thor), Charlotte Rampling (Restless, 45 Years), and Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, No Country for Old Men). This film is a sequel to the 2021 science-fiction epic based on the novel by Frank Herbert. It follows Paul Atriedes as he journeys with the Fremen while waging war against House Harkonnen.
It is crazy to think how far we are in the 2020s. The decade is flying by. It kind of feels like yesterday when I saw “Dune” for the first time in theaters. By now, I have seen it a few times in theaters, once on 4K Blu-ray, and a couple times on TNT. Safe to say, this film has taken up a significant part of my screentime through the past two and a half years. And like many people, I happened to dig it. I do not think it is by any means the greatest science fiction film ever. If anything, the pacing could have been improved. The color palette could have been tinkered just a tad in select scenes. The film feels far less eventful in its third act than it does in the first two, which felt a bit odd but I was engaged nevertheless. Overall, I thought the first “Dune” was fantastic. It even made my top 10 best movies of 2021 and won Best Picture at the 4th Annual Jack Awards. It is a really good movie and it is deserving of its praise, even if there are science fiction films I would rather watch first.
In fact, of Denis Villeneuve’s filmography, I think it is one of his inferior outings. I liked “Prisoners” better. I liked “Arrival” better. I liked “Blade Runner 2049” better. He did those previous two movies back to back and both were equally sensational. Even with the slightly weaker “Dune” coming afterwards, I will not deny that Denis Villeneuve is not only on a hot streak, but is building a case to become the greatest science fiction director ever. As far as my excitement for “Dune Part Two” goes, it was astronomical. All the trailers were great. The footage looked beautiful. And knowing that the film was shot in IMAX’s specialized aspect ratio was a bonus. I thought the film was made for the theatrical experience, and I was also happy to know that more people were going to get the chance to see this movie the way this and the last film were meant to be seen.
Shoutout to HBO Max for nearly killing movie theaters in 2021.
But the million dollar question is this… How was the movie?
Well, to answer that question… I am going to start off by stating a potential problem the movie has. And that is that I will never be able to watch it for the first time again. I will likely never get to experience the sense of euphoria the way I did seeing this movie during my initial viewing.
For those who nag about me not getting around to certain film classics like “Rocky” or “12 Angry Men,” those who choose to say I am not a real movie fan, I could do the same thing to you when it comes to “Pulp Fiction” or “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but I am not going to. Instead, I am going to tell you I am somewhat jealous because you have the opportunity on your hands to watch those movies for the first time. When I hear someone is going to watch either of those films for the first time, my initial thought is, good for them! I hope they have a time of their life equal to what I myself experienced during my first viewing. I feel the same way about “Dune Part Two,” because while I immensely enjoyed the first “Dune,” not only does this sequel feel like it is on another level, but it is one of the most innovative additions to the sci-fi genre that comes to mind.
And I say this knowing that this is a follow-up that just so happens to be the second half of a first book of a popular series that has already been adapted to both film and TV in the past. Nevertheless, this feels like something new. There are times where I watched “Dune Part Two” and could not help but make a couple “Star Wars” analogies. Based on its technical mastery and power, this film must emit similar feelings to when people watched “Star Wars” for the first time in 1977. Meanwhile, as a sequel, “Dune Part Two” reminds me a bit of “The Empire Strikes Back.”
This is not only because “Dune Part Two” is a high quality second installment, but when it comes to the duel scenes, those are improved here. Not that the duel scenes in the first “Dune” were bad. If anything, they were terrific. That said, the choreography is much more spellbinding this time around. Additionally, I felt incredibly riveted by the story and characters, which made the film’s action scenes all the more exciting. With these two ideas in mind, I can tell you there is a duel towards the end of this film that is nothing short of jaw-dropping. The choreography is so fast that you would think that Sonic the Hedgehog oversaw it. Meanwhile, it is all in the middle of a key scene of the film where the emotions of our characters reach a tipping point. Where the story reaches its finest moments. Where we get some of the finest exchanges and performances in the history of science fiction. There is a moment towards the end of the movie, it is in the trailer, where Paul Atriedes yells, “SILENCE!” As far as pure line delivery goes, it is arguably the most chilling utterance of dialogue of the decade so far. The only other line in a movie that I can think of that came out in the 2020s that rivals this for me is the final line of “Oppenheimer.” Specifically, “I believe we did.”
Another reason why I found myself calling this the next “Empire Strikes Back” is because it goes all out on its antagonists. Stellan Skarsgård returns once again to slay his performance as Baron Harkonnen. Dave Bautista continues to prove himself as a fine wrestler-turned-actor as Glossu Rabban. In fact, not only does Bautista cement himself as a superior wrestler-turned-actor when compared to John Cena and Dwayne Johnson, he convinces me he could rack up one or two Oscar nominations if he keeps up the good work. I have seen Bautista in quite a few movies now. “Dune Part Two” is easily his greatest performance yet. Between the “Dune” movies and “Blade Runner 2049,” I would love to see Bautista continue to collaborate with Denis Villeneuve as much as possible because they tend to bring out the best in each other. Both of these characters are intimidating and well executed. Every moment they are on screen had me hooked.
But the real star of the show, antagonist-wise, is Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha. While I did not love “Elvis,” there is no denying that Butler was the best part of it. Much like that film, his performance just so happens to be one of the best elements of “Dune Part Two.” There is such a sinister nature to this character that is almost beyond reality but in the case of this universe, I immediately bought into it from scene one. Butler makes it believable. This is a guy who will literally kill his own people on a whim, perhaps delivering him a great deal of satisfaction as a result. Feyd-Rautha works so well because he emitted a feeling in me that many great villains should be able to emit. He becomes a character that I love to hate. I would not want to go bowling with this character, but as a villain, he is perfect. Not only that, but Butler sometimes feels unrecognizable. I have not seen him in a lot of movies, but based on what I have seen him in before, he has a flair to his performance here that comes off as individualistic.
That said, this is film is led by Timothée Chalamet. In today’s culture, it is easy to say the idea of “the movie star” is dead. But if there are sparks of that idea that are still alive, then Timothée Chalamet is certainly one of them. And boy is he a fine star. Not only is he young and good looking, not only is he bankable, but he also just so happens to have incredible range. Prior to this movie, he starred in “Wonka.” While I was not a fan of the movie, I thought he handled the material perfectly. He made the movie fun. He was expressive, upbeat, not to mention a mighty fine vocalist. Now we go to his next movie, “Dune Part Two,” where Chalamet’s character is caught in the middle of war, politics, and drama. And Chalamet’s ability to immerse himself into a world like this is impeccable. It feels weird, but one of Chalamet’s hidden talents is making such a scrawny dude come off as one of the most convincing leading figures in recent cinema. Sure, he’s not exactly short, but muscular is not the first word I’d use to describe Chalamet as a person.
I think “Dune Part Two” has an advantage for general audiences. While I cannot imagine this movie being for everyone, I can see this movie having a wider appeal than the first one. The movie not only has more action, but I would say the action is better this time around. I also think this film’s use of Stilgar makes for a great sidekick role of sorts. He almost comes off as a guy you would be sitting next to as you are watching the movie. Maybe he recommended it to you and is guiding you for the ride. Additionally, he has some of the most memorable lines. One of my favorite moments in “Dune Part Two” is when we see him believe Paul refuses to mention he is “the one.” There is a reason why I am seeing the words “As it is written” all over social media right now, it is Javier Bardem does a phenomenal job as Stilgar. He is perfectly cast and I cannot imagine anyone else filling in his shoes.
That said, if you enjoyed “Dune,” that does not necessarily imply you will fail to do the same in regards to “Dune Part Two.” I am proof of that. I really liked the first “Dune.” I gave it a positive review. But I think this sequel feels more adventurous. The score, somehow, is more memorable its predecessor. There is a theme that blares throughout the movie that I cannot get out of my head. It does a good job at expanding the lore and building the world. The acting is better. And as a pure experience, “Dune Part Two” is simply put, superior. One of my problems with the first “Dune” is that it very much feels like an intro guide to the world within. The movie has a three act structure, character development, and pretty much everything else you need to call it a movie. But one of its flaws is that it tends to feel more like a “how to survive Arrakis tutorial” than a journey through Arrakis. Now with this movie, it feels like we are taking the tools we acquired from the predecessor and putting them to the test.
Thankfully, as I write this review, “Dune Part Two” is still playing in theaters. And I must tell you, if you have not seen “Dune Part Two” in a theater yet, do yourself a favor and get your tickets as soon as you can, because this is one of those theatrical experiences you have to see to believe. This is easily one of the best times I ever had in a movie theater. I felt like sand was coming through the speakers the entire time. I thought I was in the middle of the desert. I was convinced the wind was flying in my face. If you told me that I was in Arrakis for two and a half hours, I would have believed you. But there is a reason, above all others, why you should see this movie on the big screen. Sandworms. Yes, there are sandworms in the last movie. But that’s not the point.
In this sequel, there are several minutes in this movie dedicated to Paul first experiencing what it is like to ride a sandworm for the first time. This is one of the most riveting, loudest, most visceral, exhilarating scenes yours truly has ever witnessed. This is one of those scenes that shows why movie theaters are built. It shows why we make big movies for the big screen. When I look back at this scene, it was almost as if I were alive a century or two ago, I had never seen a movie and someone from the distant future time-travelled to when I would exist. That person would then show me the power of what movies could be. This scene is perfection. It was well shot, packed with rambunctiously satisfying audio, and is nothing short of a perfect tech demo. But in both the background and the forefront, we are seeing our characters experience the world in front of them, learn more about each other, themselves, and their abilities. As an audience member, I am getting a great mix of thrills, expansion of lore, and details about certain characters.
The movie makes such a simple moment of learning and adapting look like the most intense thing in the history of the world. This is a scene I will never forget. Once again, a moment like this will show why I would be jealous to find out someone tells me they are about to watch this movie for the first time.
I thought the sandworm action could not get as electrifying as this… Until the second half of the movie happened, and somehow it equaled, if not surpassed the thrills I felt before. There is a scene, you’ll know it when you see it, where there is a shot showing the perspective from a sandworm’s eye. It is one of the most eye-popping, beautiful things I have ever seen on a screen. It’s quick, it’s raw, it’s massive. It is basically an encapsulation that describes the film itself. I was thrilled to no end.
Although going back to the original “Dune,” this brings up something noticeable about this sequel. There is a reason why it has “Part Two” in its title. Obviously, it is the second “Dune” movie, yes. Also, it is the second half of the original book. But this really is true to its name, a “Part Two.” There are several sequels you could watch and appreciate without having to see the original movie. Having watched “Dune Part Two,” this is one of those movies where I feel in order to fully appreciate what is in front of you, it would be worth going back and giving the first “Dune” a watch at some point. Either if you forgot what happened, or if you have never seen it before. Because there are a couple moments that would hit harder if you have that movie under your belt.
I have not seen “Dune Part Two” a second time just yet, but knowing the how lost for words I became by the time the movie was over, my second viewing is definitely around the corner. But I will never forget my first time. And this is where I bring in another “Star Wars” comparison. Much like that 1977 science fiction event, I will look back at “Dune Part Two” as a film that will define a generation. It has flaws. I kind of wish to know how people get off the sandworms once they are done with them. Some of the pacing feels inconsistent, but even in the less consistent moments the story is still exciting. And again, if you have not seen the first movie, it could theoretically lessen the impact of this one just a little. Other than that, there is not much else can I say except this is one of the best fiction movies of the decade, and you should see it as soon as you get a chance.
In the end, “Dune Part Two” fits the classic motto of a fine sequel. It goes bigger, and it is better. “Dune Part Two” is not only superior to its predecessor, but it is also the first great movie I have seen in 2024. It is still early in the year, but I needed this. After “Madame Web,” “Night Swim,” and “Argylle,” I truly needed a movie that I could deem somewhere on the level of a master class effort. And this is that movie. Going back to what I said earlier, Denis Villeneuve is on a roll. While I think Christopher Nolan is the superior director, he has a knack for filmmaking that is on the level of Christopher Nolan. I have not seen all of his work. I still need to watch “Enemy” and “Incendies.” But from what I have seen so far from Villeneuve, I can say that I have not seen a single bad movie from him. I can easily name a least favorite, and that would be “Sicario,” but that is still a movie where there are more positives than negatives for me. If Denis Villeneuve ends up making a third “Dune,” perhaps an adaptation of “Dune: Messiah” that is on the level of these last two movies, it would easily further the case of him being the greatest sci-fi director of all time. Villeneuve is that good at what he does. But it is not just him. You have Greig Fraser’s immensely beautiful cinematography. Hans Zimmer’s roaring score. An incredible ensemble of actors across the board. Timothée Chalamet, Stellan Skarsgård, Rebecca Ferguson, Austin Butler, and Dave Bautista just to name a few! I did not even get to Zendaya! She does a really good job as Chani in this film. Regarding the love connection between Chani and Paul, I bought into it immediately. It is still early, so it is hard to know how this movie will do next awards season. That said, not only could I see this movie getting nominated for Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, …I can totally see it winning. It is that brilliant. I am going to give “Dune Part Two” a 9/10.
“Dune Part Two” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! Be sure to look out for my thoughts on “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dune Part Two?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite scene in film history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Dune” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival) and stars Timothee Chalamet (Interstellar, Call Me by Your Name), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Ex Machina), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Space Jam: A New Legacy), Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Stellan Skarsgård (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, Thor), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy, My Spy), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Lady Bird, Devs), Chang Chen (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Assassin), Sharon Duncan-Brewster (FIFA 17, Doctor Who), Charlotte Rampling (Stardust Memories, Dexter), Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Game of Thrones), and Javier Bardem (Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales). This film is an adaptation of the Frank Herbert novel and follows Paul Atreides, a young boy born into a royal, planet-ruling family. Paul is destined to one day take on the role of Kwistaz Haderach, much to the dismay of some, considering how his mother was instructed to bear a daughter. When House Atreides arrives on Arrakis, a sandy planet with worms that pop up out of the ground like geysers, it is up to them and Paul to protect the planet and its valuable resource, spice.
Where do I even start with “Dune?” Unlike “Blade Runner,” when it comes to Denis Villeneuve’s work, I was much less familiar with “Dune’s” source material, especially when compared to Villeneuve himself, because the more I heard about this movie, the more I recognized Herbert’s love for the source material. When I first heard Denis Villeneuve was working on this project, and I think cinematographer Roger Deakins was rumored to be involved as well, I was obviously excited because Villeneuve is one of the best directors working in Hollywood today. I’ve only seen a couple of his films, but I’ve always been curious to go back to “Sicario” and “Enemy” because of how much I have adored his recent work. Both “Arrival” and “Blade Runner 2049” made it to my Top Movies of the 2010s countdown event as the #10 and #2 spots respectively. I love both films to the moon and beyond, and I cannot tell you how many times I popped in the 4K Blu-ray for “Blade Runner 2049” since I bought it. I have not even read the novel or its follow-ups, and even with that, “Dune” was easily my most anticipated film of 2021. It may have even been my most anticipated for 2020, but COVID-19 ended up killing the hopes of it coming out that year.
Just for the record, I have not seen any of the previous on-screen adaptations of “Dune.” I’ve read a number of pages of “Dune” during a car ride, but I never picked it back up. It’s not that I did not like the book, I just didn’t have time for it. But regardless of what I have not seen, the trailers for this film encapsulated a supposed epic vibe that Villeneuve and crew may have been shooting for. Big scale, massive locations, and we even got a bit of taste of Hans Zimmer’s score long before the film officially released, and when I heard it, it made me more excited for the film because it sounds like what would happen if a madman trapped an orchestra in a chamber and wouldn’t release them until they were dead tired. From the little that I heard, it sounded majestic as hell.
Now that “Dune” is done, what did I think?
In a number of ways, “Dune” met my expectations, but it is not the best movie of the year. I can think of a few movies I liked more. BUT, if you want a great time at the movies that can make you put your thinking cap on, “Dune” may be for you. “Dune” reminded me of a number of films, one of the first being “Blade Runner 2049,” mainly because both have some distinctions that Denis Villeneuve can call his own. Plus, I knew a tad about “Dune” going into it, and one of the things I knew is that it was pretty dense, so it was no surprise to me that the film itself would turn out to be a bit of a slow burn. Slow does not mean bad in this case. You can make a film slow as long as it seems that the pace fits for the subject matter or the film itself. Same goes with quick pace. You can have explosions and bangs and crazy lasers flying in your face every other second as long as the script and direction makes those things add up. This is not to say there are no explosions in “Dune.” There are, just watch the trailers. But don’t go in expecting every other scene to be like a dogfight in “Star Wars.” But on that note, this film also feels rather “Star Wars”-esque. Granted, the book came out before “Star Wars” hit theaters, but my point is, both stories have similar vibes and themes. Both involve young boys who associate with desert planets and must strive to become men greater than themselves. Both in a way have to follow the hero’s journey, a typical story structure that is often followed or slightly altered depending on the story at hand. I will not give any details as to what ways “Dune” follows or does not follow that structure, but the point stands.
I want to talk about some of the characters in this film, and believe me when I say that this film is not short on bringing together a great cast. Between Timothee Chalamet, who I loved since “Interstellar,” to Zendaya who is practically starting to appear in everything now, to Oscar Isaac who has been great in Alex Garland’s work along with the “Star Wars” franchise, even though he was the one who had to say “Somehow Palpatine returned.” The film is not short on A-listers and stars. Overall, the chemistry and acting between everyone was top notch.
Timothee Chalamet appears as if he is going to be the next Oscar great. Maybe not this year, he is still quite young. But throughout his lifetime, I think he’ll be the male equivalent to Meryl Streep. I think one day, we’ll see an Academy Awards ceremony with an opening monologue from whoever is currently hosting a hit talk show on ABC and one of the jokes will poke fun at Chalamet for stealing all the Oscars from all the up and coming talent. I almost think there is no one better to play Paul Atreides because Chalamet not only looks young, but he has this bridge between him that I can sense that he is young enough to be a kid, but mature enough to be liked by the parents of whomever he’s dating. Chalamet has range, and it is shown in this film through his expressiveness and occasional stoic nature. That’s not implying that Paul Atreides, the character himself, is up for question on what kind of character he actually is, but it sort of shows that the character knows how to put himself in a variety of situations, even though he is still learning how to be an adult.
Along with Chalamet for much of the journey is Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica. I will admit, after watching the movie, someone brought up a creepy but true fact. Take this as you will. One of my favorite elements of the movie is the chemistry between Timothee Chalamet and Rebecca Ferguson. Naturally, it feels the way a mother and son should be. The mother wants what’s best for her kid, and the kid does his best to impress the mother even though he may occasionally lash out or disagree with her. Chemistry-wise, I would love to see more of these two actors together. The thing however, in real life, Chalamet is 25 years old. Rebecca Ferguson is 38 years old. That’s a difference of 13 years! So either teenage reproduction is much more welcomed, accepted, and/or encouraged in the future, or these actors have such great range that age is meaningless, therefore making both individuals more convincing performers. For the sake of sanity and the fact that child labor laws exist, I would much prefer to go with the latter. If anything, I think Rebecca Ferguson may give a better performance than Timothee Chalamet, because there are several scenes and lines of dialogue that I could feel her pain, reflecting a natural instinct that most, if not all mothers, would have.
The main antagonistic side of the film would be the Harkonnens, who ravage the planet of Arrakis for Spice. It is up to our heroes to defend the planet and its precious resource. So in a way, this movie is literally the War on Drugs. This side allows for some more great performances to shine through, including one from Dave Bautista as Beast Rabban Harkonnen. I want to highlight him in this review because I think that a performance like this allows him to sharpen his skills as an actor. I like Dave Bautista as a personality, but I think even he knows that his acting skills are limited. Unlike his role as Drax the Destroyer, where he would either scream, laugh in someone’s face, or give a brooding quote every once in a while, his role in “Dune” is more menacing and takes the brooding nature of his Drax character and intensifies it a bit. I like Drax the Destroyer, but if you watch him in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” the way he’s both written and performed feel slightly one-dimensional, but Bautista did an okay job with the character nevertheless. I think if you put Bautista in front of the right director like James Gunn, again, I like Drax. Or in this case Denis Villeneuve, his talents could be unleashed. I hope that these two continue to collaborate in the future.
As menacing as Bautista may be, he’s got nothing on Baron Harkonnen himself, played by Stellan Skarsgård. HOLY CRAP. Now that’s casting. I also have to give props to the makeup department, because of the work they did on the Harkonnens, making them all look pasty white. As for Stellan Skarsgård, this is no offence to him, because in real life, he may be a nice guy, I would not want to shake Baron Harkonnen’s hand. He looks like what would happen if Wilford Brimley ate a ton of ice cream and endlessly made fun of the children of generations below his, and maybe once in a while, enjoyed those kids’ heads with his ice cream. The dude flat out looks creepy by sci-fi standards. You want my money Warner Bros.? You own both these characters to a degree so make this happen! Get Bill and Stellan Skarsgård together, have them portray their characters of Pennywise and Baron Harkonnen respectively, just have them go around scaring children and other crap like that. I’d watch that.
One character that must also be acknowledged is Duncan Idaho. Aside from the fact that the name is freaking lit, Jason Momoa is perfectly cast as this character, because similar to how he made Aquaman a superhero I would want to have a drink with, Momoa shines because of his enthusiastic, almost reckless nature in this film. He’s in a somewhat serious, deep, intense sci-fi picture that the rest of these characters happen to be in, and he’s the only performer who happens to be taking things not so seriously. His character just screams ridiculous fun at times. He’s expressive, he’s witty, he’s charismatic, and much like Aquaman, I would go to a bar with Idaho if I had the chance.
For those of you who were looking forward to seeing Zendaya in the film for whatever reason, I would not prepare for disappointment, but I would also not prepare for excitement at this point, because her character is written in such a way that she has such a minimal impact and appearance throughout the film. If anything, we’ll probably get more of her in part two. I do think her character was well cast, I just hope the next movie gives us a clear answer as to whether Zendaya was truly a good choice for the role of Chani. But from what I’ve seen so far, she seems promising.
I really want to talk about the ending of this film, without spoilers of course. But most stories you read or watch have a proper ending where something dramatic happens, matters are resolved, maybe there’s a happily ever after, then we cut to “the end,” maybe black or white, or just straight to the credits. “Dune” does not have that kind of ending. I will not say where it ends, but it ends in a particularly interesting place. Let’s just say the ending is not the same as the first book… If you want to put it that way. The film ends on at a place where we see our characters in a particular situation only to have the screen cut to black. I have seen the film twice, and both times, I did not mind the ending. Mainly because I have enjoyed what I have seen so far, and the movie set itself up in a way to make me want more. I left thinking, what’s next? When are we getting the next movie? I want it now! Some would claim that in a way, this story is unfinished. I disagree. While the film is structured in a such a way that could garner such a thought when the ending comes up, I disagree because from start to finish, this movie is about the journey, struggle, and change of Paul Atreides as a character. We see him start at one point. We know his ambition, his flaws, and what others think of him. By the end of the film, he is different from how he is when it starts. I won’t give much detail, but if you pay close attention to the movie, you’ll notice. One journey is over, and another one begins. It is a… Strange ending. But it is also one that happens to be effective. I do not blame the movie for ending where it did.
With that being said, “Dune: Part Two” cannot come fast enough. When it arrives, I will buy my tickets in a heartbeat.
I thought to myself upon leaving the theater that while “Dune” was not my favorite film of this year, there is a lot that will it do to aspire future filmmakers and storytellers. I have a feeling that this “Dune” movie is going to have a similar impact on part of the current generation that “Star Wars” and “Lord of the Rings” did on their generations. If anything, even though there were some imperfections when it comes “Dune,” I think it has a shot at being the next “Lord of the Rings.” Between the modern visuals, the epic scope, the dense storytelling with enormous potential, this is absolute franchise material. In fact, as of writing this, not only is “Dune: Part Two” greenlit, but there’s also going to be a TV show set in the “Dune” universe coming to HBO Max at some point. This could be big.
BEVERLY HILLS, CA – JANUARY 16: Composer Hans Zimmer arrives at the 68th Annual Golden Globe Awards held at The Beverly Hilton hotel on January 16, 2011 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Jason Merritt/Getty Images)
As for Hans Zimmer’s score, OH MY GOD. If you go see this in theaters, and I highly recommend you do so, prepare to have the room shake like a fish out of water. It is some of his best work to date and I would put it up there with, interestingly enough, another score he did for a Denis Villeneuve film, “Blade Runner 2049,” which he did with Benjamin Wallfisch.
In the end, “Dune,” or “Dune: Part One,” depending on your preference, is a great adaptation of the iconic sci-fi novel. It’s dense and occasionally hard to get through if you are in a certain mindset, but this film successfully created an epic atmosphere and introduced a whole new world of lore and possibilities. Well, kinda. This is another retelling of a classic story. Denis Villeneuve is up there with some of my favorite directors and this movie ended in such a way where I enjoyed the journey so far, but I also left with curiosity as to where they’d take the story. As of now, “Dune: Part Two” is my most anticipated film of 2023. The film can occasionally feel dense and strenuous. The ending, even though it did fulfill the arch of Paul Atreides, comes at a satisfying point, but also feels particularly emptier compared to other portions of the film. So for what I said, I massively enjoyed “Dune,” and I have a feeling that it could be something that will increase in enjoyment through repeat viewings. I’m going to give “Dune” an 8/10.
“Dune” is now playing in theaters everywhere and is streaming for a limited time on the ad-free tier of HBO Max.
Thanks for reading this review! If you are worried that I am going to be short on upcoming content. Trust me, I’m not. I want you all to know that I have reviews coming for “The French Dispatch,” “Last Night in Soho,” “Eternals,” and “Ron’s Gone Wrong.” There’s plenty of content to come but so little time! If you want to read this and more on Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dune?” What did you think about it? Or, did you ever read any of the “Dune” books? Which is your favorite? And did you see any of the other “Dune” adaptations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the third installment of the Scene Before exclusive review series, “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Chest of Reviews.” Before we begin, I want to remind everyone that if you want to read my reviews for the previous “Pirates of the Caribbean” films, you can click the highlighted links to read my thoughts on “The Curse of the Black Pearl” and “Dead Man’s Chest.” Also speaking of my reviews, click the following highlighted link to check out my review for “Black Widow.” But enough about the past. Let’s focus on the present! Well, by going back to 2007. It is time to talk about Gore Verbinski’s third, and depending on what his future career choices may be, final “Pirates of the Caribbean” film, “At World’s End!”
“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” is directed by Gore Verbinski, who also directed the first two “Pirates of the Caribbean” films and stars Johnny Depp (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow), Orlando Bloom (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Ned Kelly), Keira Knightley (Star Wars Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Bend it Like Beckham), Stellan Skarsgård (Good Will Hunting, King Arthur), Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) Chow Yun-fat (The Killer, Hard Boiled), Geoffrey Rush (Ned Kelly, Finding Nemo), Jack Davenport (This Life, Coupling) Kevin McNally (Doctor Who, Conspiracy), and Jonathan Pryce (Brazil, Glengarry Glen Ross). This film is the third installment of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise and follows Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann as they search for Jack Sparrow. After a long, hard search, Sparrow and others must unite and form alliances to save piracy in one last battle.
If you read my reviews for the previous two “Pirates of the Caribbean” films, you’d know that I enjoyed both of them. I think the first is far better than the second, but it does not take away from some of the fun that the second does provide, especially in the second half with the kraken. One of the best parts of the second movie is the way it ended, because it left us on a cliffhanger that teased the third movie and managed to do so in an exciting way. Evidently, this was supposed to be the end of a planned trilogy given how Gore Verbinski helmed the first two films and came back to do this one. You may notice that he has not directed “On Stranger Tides” or “Dead Men Tell No Tales,” but we’ll probably talk about that more once we get to those films depending on whether or not it is truly worth addressing.
As for this third movie, a lot is riding on this between a couple films of build up, a popular IP, and a $300 million budget. Just for context, that budget is higher than all three “Lord of the Rings” films combined. This budget is higher than every “Star Wars” movie ever made. At the time this film came out, it was the most expensive movie ever made. The only movies that have ever had a higher budget are the three most recent “Avengers” movies and weirdly enough, this film’s sequel, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.” Granted, this big gamble paid off, partially because it became the highest-grossing film of 2007 with a worldwide total of $960.9 million at the box office. But also because unlike another $300 million film, “Justice League,” which at times looked rather fabricated and artificial, this film maximizes the use of its bloated budget into crafting an insane finale and one dazzling sequence after another.
Of the few films that we have seen so far in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, this perhaps has my favorite opening of all of them. This is because we get a sense of the dark times ahead and a reminder that in the case of this film’s story, there is a solid chance that no pirate is safe. The film did a really good job at establishing a potential threat and made me curious to see where things could potentially go from scene one.
Although one thing that has been consistent in all three films so far is that even though there are varying dark themes and moments, they have all been balanced in this weird, but also delightful vibe where the movie is nearly unashamedly goofy. I said this has worked in the first film, it’s worked less in the second film, but in this third film, Gore Verbinski and crew did a good job at making me believe that what I was seeing could actually happen in this universe. While Jack Sparrow as a character has obviously changed from one film to the next, there are glimmers of his personality that feel permanent and signature to his character. The film has this thing where we see multiple Jacks, where in reality this is an effect of Sparrow being consumed by Davy Jones, and it is almost the most “Jack Sparrow” thing to happen in this franchise yet.
Speaking of which, I may be beating a dead horse, but when it comes to Johnny Depp’s portrayal of Jack Sparrow, there is no denying his abilities to encapsulate a character like this. Despite being a live-action movie, Depp’s performances in this franchise have always had some feel of hyperactive animation within them. This is not a bad thing, nor is it too surprising considering how this comes from the Disney brand, where goofiness and lightheartedness has been known as one of their strengths, but I find it fascinating how we have this dark, intense, PG-13 film and one of the first things that comes to mind is a character as goofy as Jack Sparrow, and I mean that as a positive. If “The Princess Bride” were made today and turned into a trilogy, Gore Verbinski’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies would be quite the comparative.
But oh my gawd. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE CLIMAX. HOLY F*CKEROO ON A S*ITFACE CRACKER IS IT EVER EXCITING! As mentioned before, “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” has a production budget of $300 million, making it one of the most expensive films ever made, and it freaking delivered! The final hour of this movie, while not part of one of the best movies I have ever seen, has to be one of the most exciting things I can remember seeing in cinema. This is a big budget battle for the ages. So much is happening at once between people swinging in the air, Sparrow and Jones duking it out on a ledge with swords, character arcs coming full circle in satisfying ways, Calypso going crazy and intensifying things even further, and perhaps the craziest marriage proposal I have seen EVER.
SPOILER ALERT, although this movie is over a decade old, so who cares? Will Turner proposes to Elizabeth Swann. The two have been love interests since the first movie and there is a point where these two are fighting for their lives and could potentially die any second. Will Turner just pops the question and it is followed by Elizabeth Swann reasonably asking, “Do you think now is the best time?!” Guess what, in just a split second, Barbossa is right in front of them OFFICIATING A WEDDING! It may just be the most wonderfully insane, romantic, and flat out fantastical thing I have seen in cinematic history. I know some weddings can be crazy. Tell me the last time two people were wed like this! For the record, swords are flying in these two people’s faces, another ship is attacking the ship they’re on, and if that’s not enough, they’re in a freaking whirlpool! BEST. WEDDING. EVER.
If there is ever a film that I think my mind will positively dart to as wonderfully expensive, and not just going balls to the wall with the budget just because it can, this would probably be the one. Well, maybe this and “Avengers: Endgame.” Granted, it is not perfect. Like the other two films, it is long, but I also will say that the pacing for this film is arguably the best in the franchise given how little boredom I’ve had in a near 3 hour runtime. This film is everything a movie like this should be on the surface. Dark, silly, and fun! And by the end of it, the whole thing becomes a rollercoaster. Both literally and emotionally.
I also want to note this scene, which may just be this franchise’s greatest exchange yet.
This is accurate! This is spectacular!
In the end, “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” is an extended but thrilling conclusion to Gore Verbinski’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” trilogy. If anything, the big question on my mind is which film am I more likely to watch again? “The Curse of the Black Pearl” or “At World’s End?” Because I really like both movies for different reasons. I feel like as a story I will go back to watch “The Curse of the Black Pearl.” It is finely tuned from start to finish with great characters. “At World’s End” has an okay story too, but by the end of it, it is more focused on spectacle than anything else, which is not a bad thing because the spectacle is bloody fantastic. I mean seriously! The budget for “At World’s End” is more than double what it cost to make “The Curse of the Black Pearl” and somehow it does not feel like a gimmick. Granted, I’m sure the actors like Johnny Depp had something to do with it, but still. The movie earns its budget, and by the end, it therefore earns my respect. Technically speaking, this film is wonderful from the effects to the framing to Hans Zimmer’s score, it is all worth my three hours. For that, I’m going to give “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” a 7/10.
“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” is now available wherever you buy movies including DVD and Blu-ray and you can also watch it on Disney+.
Thanks for reading this review! Now that we’ve finished talking about Gore Verbinski’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” trilogy, it is time to move onto a new director, Rob Marshall, as he takes on “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” which stands today as the most expensive film ever produced. Is it truly worth the money? Find out in my fourth installment of “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Chest of Reviews,” coming Thursday, July 22nd.
Also, I want to remind everyone that next week I will have a review up for “Space Jam: A New Legacy,” starring LeBron James, the long-awaited sequel to the 1996 original starring Michael Jordan. If you want to see this and more on 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 “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End?” What did you think about it? Or, of the three Gore Verbinski “Pirates” films, which is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the second entry of the Scene Before exclusive review series, “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Chest of Reviews!” Today, we will be diving into the second film in the franchise, “Dead Man’s Chest.” If you read my review for “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” you’d know that I had a lot of fun with that film. It’s a solid mix of old fashioned Disney vibes mixed in with some darker and more mature elements to create something special. Can this sequel capture the same feeling that I got from the original? Here’s my review!
“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is directed by Gore Verbinski, who also directed the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film. This sequel once again stars Johnny Depp (Sleepy Hollow, Ed Wood) as Jack Sparrow alongside Orlando Bloom (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Ned Kelly), Keira Knightley (Star Wars Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Bend it Like Beckham), Stellan Skarsgård (Good Will Hunting, King Arthur), Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), Jack Davenport (This Life, Coupling), Kevin McNally (Doctor Who, Conspiracy), and Jonathan Pryce (Brazil, Glengarry Glen Ross). This film once again follows Jack Sparrow as he embarks on a quest to find the heart of Davy Jones to avoid enslaving himself to his service. Meanwhile, others are after the heart as well, but for their own reasons.
I really enjoyed the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film. It’s pretty to look at, it’s fun to watch, it is overall simply crafted with a sense of sheer magnificence. Gore Verbinski did a good job at not just making a great film that I will likely watch again in the future, but also finding a fine line between genius and stupid. In my review for “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” I pointed out that if anything, the film is essentially a modern day version of “The Princess Bride” because it is a great watch for both kids and adults, it’s got terrific sword fights, and both films seem to place themselves in a position where they can be goofy while also realizing it can be smart. When it comes to Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow, I will stand by him being perfectly cast, and his presence in this sequel certainly proves my point. Jack Sparrow feels like a role that only someone like Johnny Depp can play. I cannot imagine anyone else taking on this role after watching these two films.
Unfortunately, this sequel is not as good as the original, as the old saying goes. However, it is not a bad movie. The second half is what kept my attention. This is not to say that the first half was bad, but compared to the second, it is kind of forgettable. On top of that, the one specific part that I remember most from the first half is perhaps the film’s biggest deterrent. In the current post-modern era, there is a tendency from studios, distributors, and producers to constantly create content that lacks originality. Sometimes it’s a good thing, sometimes it’s a bad thing. In case of these first two “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, I’d say it’s a good thing, but it does not mean it is perfect.
As you may or may not know, this property started out as a theme park ride. A lot of movies these days tend to have a theme park-like experience. The Marvel movies are varying visual feasts for the eyes and ears. The “Fast & Furious” movies are ridiculous in concept and crazy in execution because of their messing with physics and what could be done with supercharged cars. In fact, “F9” honestly took that theme park-esque experience a little too far for me to continually suspend my disbelief. Honestly, I do not know where the next “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies are going to go, but part of me worries that they’re going to go down the same path that “Fast & Furious” followed since the fourth movie. Now to be clear, I am not saying that every “Fast & Furious” has sucked since the fourth one. The only installment I hated since the fourth one is “F9.” But the reason why I hated “F9” is because each film manages to surpass the last in some degree of absurdity that it is too much for my brain to handle. There’s one or two scenes in “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” where Jack Sparrow arguably should have been seriously injured or dead, but he isn’t! He walks off every other incident as if nothing happened! I am keeping an open mind at this point given how this is a fantasy film, but this is nevertheless something that does irk me internally. The first “Pirates of the Caribbean” film, even though it was a bit ridiculous, it still felt like there were rules. In “Dead Man’s Chest,” there is less verisimilitude and a greater sense of absurdity.
This complaint does not take anything away from the fun that I had.
Throughout, the film has a lot of the strengths that the first one has. Some great lead characters. No seriously, I love Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom when they’re put together. I think they would make a great pair for a buddy cop movie one day. The visuals are breathtaking and hold up fifteen years later. In fact, I am not totally surprised considering how this film happened to win the Best Visual Effects Oscar for the year it came out. The entire encounter with the kraken is worth the watch alone. Keira Knightley is back as Elizabeth Swann and I really liked seeing her here too. There’s this funny scene towards the end of the film where Sparrow is supposedly flirting with her and her reactions to this are one of the better parts of the movie.
As for new characters, this movie adds Naomie Harris as Tia Dalma, and I think she was a perfect addition to this movie. She has this fantastical presence to her that could only work in a movie like this. I’m not gonna lie, by the end of the movie, I almost had a crush on the character. Naomie Harris shines as this mysterious being who used to be a sea goddess, Calypso specifically, and her voice is perfect for someone who helps someone else who happens to be trying to fulfill their destiny. I like this character and of the many supporting characters this franchise has introduced so far, this one was perfectly cast.
Without spoiling anything, I also really like the way they end the film. It is exciting, thrilling, and gets me stoked to see the third movie the more I think about it. I feel like Gore Verbinski is really passionate about everything that he has put to screen in these first two films and he has a serious idea on the direction to take the third film. They got a couple of the writers who worked on the first film to come back as well. Something tells me they all work very well together and love what they do. I am very excited to see where they go from here.
In the end, “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is worth a watch, but compared to “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” it is not exactly as Shakespearean. “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” despite being in the fantasy genre like “Dead Man’s Chest,” seemed to acknowledge that there were some rules that had to be followed. Maybe if I were a young kid watching this I’d let the absurdity of the film fly over my head, but at this point, it didn’t, and it is a reason why the movie lost some points. Nevertheless this is a serviceable sequel with a kick-ass second half. I cannot wait for the third movie, part of me thinks that it will be better than this one. I’m going to give “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” a 6/10.
“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is available wherever you buy movies including DVD and Blu-ray, and you can also watch the film on Disney+.
Thanks for reading this review! Next week we dive into the deep waters of world’s end! My review for “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” will be available on Thursday, July 15th! Stay tuned!
This weekend I have a couple new posts coming your way including a brand new installment to the CINEOLOGY podcast, where I am once again joined by my good friend Millie as we talk movies. Also, I will have a review up for one of the biggest movies of the summer, “Black Widow!” The film drops in theaters and on Disney+ this weekend, I’ve already got my tickets, and I cannot wait to share my thoughts on this movie that we REALLY should have gotten three or four years ago! I cannot wait to see this! I love Marvel! I love Scarlett Johansson! I love the fact that we are getting big movies again! The experience will hopefully be worth the wait! If you want to see this and more on Scene Before follow either with an email or WordPress account or check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Johnny Depp film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” is directed by Terry Gilliam (Brazil, Time Bandits) and stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Girls), Jonathan Pryce (Glengarry Glen Ross, Tomorrow Never Dies), Stellan Skarsgård (Good Will Hunting, Mamma Mia!), Olga Kurylenko (The November Man, Oblivion), and Joana Ribeiro (Madre Paula, Dancin’ Days). This film is about a film director named Toby who runs into a Spanish cobbler from his past. Said cobbler believes himself to be Don Quixote. Throughout the runtime, the movie displays the two’s adventures.
Now this movie is actually pretty special, not necessarily to me, but to the history of cinema and its director, Terry Gilliam. If you know Terry Gilliam and what he has done in the past, you’d know that he has worked on multiple “Monty Python” films, “Brazil,” and “Time Bandits.” Regardless of the movies that he made in the past that general audience members do know, this is one that a bunch of people may have known by name, but never have gotten a chance to look into. Because this has a special place in cinematic history. It’s a movie that has embodied the term “development hell.” No matter how hard this visionary tries to successfully make a film, he fails. Actors keep getting sick or losing interest, sets break apart, funding goes down the drain, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! In fact, as several sources suggest, including the film itself in its opening titles, this took about three decades to complete. And if you notice some of the casting choices and complicated set pieces in the film, it is somewhat easy to see why.
But the question I have is this. Is the movie too outdated for today’s era? Does it tend to hold up? I honestly think it does. While I have not seen any of the “Monty Python” films to this day (almost saw “Life of Brian” once though), I can see why people come back to those films, and the humor, from what I gathered, must have translated from those films into this one. In fact, when it comes to this film, it is nothing short of hysterical! The chemistry between the two main characters is delightful, and even reminds me of George and Lennie from “Of Mice and Men.” It’s not exactly a precise comparison, but if you have been exposed to both properties, you’d be able to see why I’d say that.
In fact, part of me is almost surprised that this movie’s story turned out as well as it did, because when it comes to “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote,” I really heard a lot more regarding its production value and whatever comes from the technical side of things, which we will get into momentarily, but I am almost surprised that the story turned out as well as it did. Granted, with this much time to work on a production, it would be somewhat expected that the story would go through tons of revision to get the best possible product. And I think, while not perfect, the story is definitely worth noting. Conceptually, the idea of someone thinking they actually ARE a character they’ve played in their past is nothing short of genius, but even some of the greatest ideas had poor execution. Hey, let’s make a “Star Wars” film where Darth Vader is a kid! It’ll be full of digital creatures, critical space politics, and highly choreographed fighting! Alright! Chop chop! We’ve got until 1999, let’s party like it’s the end of the world!
I already talked about the dynamic duo of this film, but when it comes to their individual characters, they are kind of great on their own. In fact, Adam Driver’s character sort of reminds me of myself in some ways. He’s a director who is really into his craft, he tends to remain somewhat calm but is not afraid to be honest, and he seems somewhat motivational too. I think Adam Driver was good casting, and despite watching the documentary “Lost In La Sancha” and doing research on this film, I honestly think that it is hard for me to see anybody else playing Driver’s character. As for “Don Quixote,” I thought he was perfect. It is only April, and I don’t even know if I will technically qualify this film as a 2019 movie, but if I do, Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote is the best performance of 2019 thus far. He’s basically Gandalf if he collided with an elementary school teacher. Compared to Driver, Pryce is hyperactive, upbeat, and often speaks in a much higher pitch. Then again, when you’re still the guy playing Kylo Ren, you’re going to need to practice in order to continue possessing your dark and brooding role. In fact, this duo’s chemistry is so good that when the movie moves toward’s its climax, all the buildup to it is definitely worth showing. I won’t go into the climax, but something really weird and interesting happens. Yes, that’s completely vague, I don’t care, figure it out for yourself. This allows yourselves to use your imaginations, it’s powerful!
As far as this movie goes as a production, I think the cinematography is great, the locations almost come out of a storybook, the sets are complicated to the point where you would either wish to visit them or at least wonder how they were conceived. It definitely has that feeling you would get out of a “Lord of the Rings” film, although in a slightly smaller scale, which isn’t really a bad thing. There are some neat edits to be seen, and if you watch the movie, you can definitely get an image as to why this took years to make. Just seeing the first windmill within minutes sets the tone for the entire movie (alongside the opening titles), I knew I was in for a ride, and I definitely walked out with… what’s a tamer version of an adrenaline rush? In fact, when it comes to my experience, the movie tends to showcase that 110%, because I saw this film under an engagement from Fathom Events since they were saying the film was going to be in theaters for one night. Turns out it is a getting a VOD and theatrical run starting this weekend, but still. As part of the event, I stayed for the credits and got a quick look into how the film was made. In fact, it is easy to tell that everyone was passionate about Gilliam’s project. There was even a brief clip with Adam Driver saying “I just love his movies.” Knowing Gilliam’s track record, it is easy to see why. In fact, one of my most recent reviews was for the movie “Us,” and I said that the movie intrigued me enough to make me want to take a glance at “Get Out,” I can say something similar about seeing this movie and Terry Gilliam’s filmography. I kinda want to watch more “Monty Python,” “Time Bandits,” (my dad is BEGGING me to watch that), “Brazil,” and perhaps whatever else he has up his sleeves. Let’s just hope his future projects don’t fall apart like this one!
In the end, “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” is a marvelous movie for cinematic adventures! Knowing the backstory behind this movie, this is what it must have been like. You’re a kid trying to build a complex LEGO set, one in which you have been putting years of effort into only to have your younger sibling smash it to the ground. Again. Again. And again. Knowing that such a development hell-esque movie could turn out like this, gives me hope for the industry going forward. I’m glad that the end result had come out to something that feels the opposite of someone just wanting to get something done so they don’t have to do it again. You know, kinda like when you’re a dad dragged by your young teen daughter to a One Direction concert. Terry Gilliam has obviously put his heart and soul into something that isn’t quite perfect (much like this film’s progress), but is definitely worth highlighting as an important piece of art in cinematic history. I’m going to give “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” an 8/10. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’m going to have my review up for “Apollo 11,” the recent documentary which reveals footage of the mission of the same name. Also, next week, we’ve got some important movie news! If December 25th is Christmas, then APRIL 25th is Avengersmas. Wait… Avengersmas? Endgameas? Endgamas? Infinitymas? Marvelmas? Whatever, I’ll let everyone have their own interpretation on the matter. One of my upcoming reviews, is for the biggest movie, well… ever. 22 installments, 11 years, no reboots, and a crapton of end credit scenes. Next week I am going to “Avengers: Endgame” opening night and holy crap, it is rare for me to have this much anticipation for a film! I am honestly shocked myself because I’ve often thought of some recent installments to the MCU as less memorable compared to some others, but not only do I have faith in this one, but this is practically an event. And I am certainly glad to be a part of the event. April 25th, you cannot come soon enough!
Also, last week I revealed a trailer for something I am calling “Project 2020,” I figured if you guys didn’t see it yet and have some sort of curiosity as to checking it out, I will provide a link to the video down below, please check it out. Or don’t, it’s your guys’ world and I just live in it. Be sure to follow Scene Before with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that you like that is known for going through some kind of development hell? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again” is directed by Ol Parker (Now Is Good, Imagine Me & You) and stars Lily James (Baby Driver, Cinderella), Amanda Seyfried (Ted 2, Mean Girls), Christine Baranski (The Good Wife, Chicago), Pierce Brosnan (GoldenEye, The Matador), Dominic Cooper (Preacher, Captain America: The First Avenger), Colin Firth (Kingsman: The Secret Service, Love, Actually), Andy Garcia (Ocean’s Eleven, The Godfather: Part III), Stellan Skarsgård (Good Will Hunting, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote), Julie Waters (Brave, Paddington), with Cher (Moonstruck, Mask), and Meryl Streep (The Post, Sophie’s Choice). This movie is the sequel to 2008’s “Mamma Mia!: The Movie.” Five years after the events of the original film, Sophie learns about past events involving her mother, while the movie chooses to simultaneously focus on what the movie’s universe would call present events.
This “Mamma Mia!” installment might as well only be made because of how much money the first one actually made. Based on words I’ve heard just the other day, I’ve been totally shocked by the numbers of the first “Mamma Mia!,” finding out it has actually brought in a total of over $600 million at the worldwide box office. Funny enough, it was never #1 at the box office on ANY of the weekends of its run! Seriously! “Iron Man” came out the same year, it was #1 on both its opening weekend and its second weekend, and yet it still made less than “Mamma Mia” did during its entire run! Now that we have that we have this sequel, I must ask… Will the box office numbers be as high as this film, or is this one giant fluke? The answer, will have to wait because this movie, when it comes to its official public release, is only a short number of days old. Another question I found completely unanswerable is “How was the movie?”
Upon walking out of the theater, I couldn’t even answer how the movie truly was. I could confirm I didn’t like it, I thought it was somewhat flawed. But at the same time, it was kind of fun. This movie is not necessarily just another bad movie, it’s also the kind of bad that to me, didn’t really make me hate myself. But part of me wondered why. Sure, maybe certain musical segments were well choreographed, I guess there were some chuckleworthy moments here and there, and there was also times where I just admired the main locations of the film. In fact, part of why I actually enjoyed myself very much may have been due to watching the film in the IMAX format. If I went to see “Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again” in a regular theater with a normal screen, I would have probably enjoyed myself a bit less than I did in my circumstance of viewing this film. I had low expectations going into “Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again,” and just because I enjoyed myself, doesn’t mean I thought the film was anywhere near absolute perfection. It just means I don’t want to bang my head on a wall for an hour.
The biggest problem I have with “Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again” is just that it’s kind of confusing. Granted, part of it be my fault as a viewer, because I’m willing to bet if I saw the first film, this sequel would be a lot more crystal clear. I won’t go into detail because the movie just came out and not everyone has seen it yet, but I just felt like there were maybe a huge amount of clutter in terms of characters, plot lines, etc. Granted, you can argue “Avengers: Infinity War” has that same issue, but the thing is, that movie plays out like a TV show. Everything has been leading up to it, if you’ve seen MCU movies released prior to that one, you’d probably have some sort of connection with the characters based on their journeys, and the way the screenplay and direction came together in that film made it feel like a thrill ride. “Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again” expands the story of the franchise, but it does that by including something that doesn’t really have much stakes attached to it. For a film like this, that might be a weird complaint, but I just didn’t really care for anyone in this film. Again, I didn’t watch the first installment, so I may be cheating with that statement. But I just found this film boring at times because it felt like it was a story that just had so much going on with occasional interruptions from musical numbers.
If you know me in person, chances are you’d know that I love thinker movies, I love movies that make you figure out what’s going on, movies that don’t give you all the answers right away, movies that rely on being complicated therefore making them come off as a fun puzzle. I love movies that don’t make you feel stupid! Although, one complaint I can’t believe I’m saying here is that I thought this movie was a bit more complicated than it had to be. Was it intentional? I doubt it. In fact, I feel like the only real intention of this sequel was to get money. This movie goes back and forth in time, only to make me wonder which character is which, and which part of my brain hurts the most. I think if the movie really wanted to tell its story from a perspective that goes over both the past and present, it should have really had some more work done during the edit. What should have been done is if you want to go over a past event, you should color grade or put a filter over the footage to make it look old-timey. I wouldn’t call something like this dumbing down, but I would consider it to be hint of help or aid for those who don’t even know what’s going on.
As far as the movie’s characters go, I’m not even gonna go into detail about a lot of them. To make a long story short, most of them are rather quirky, and have their own individual qualities that make them who they are. If you’re expecting to see Meryl Streep in this movie, you do get her, but as far as actually getting HER, don’t expect much. Because the movie mainly focuses on a younger version of her character (Lily James).
Having seen Lily James play this younger version of Donna, I can kind of buy into her interpretation of the character, and I’d say she did a fine job with the role for the most part. But in all seriousness, this does beg a question. The question I have to ask is… Is Lily James the next Meryl Streep? Granted, you don’t really need to be a powerhouse actor to be in a movie like this. It’s recommended, but that’s not the biggest thing that I’d say you need. In fact, in some cases, your ability to sing would probably have a higher importance. I do think Lily James is an alright actor. I haven’t seen her in much, but I’d say she’s an alright actor nevertheless. But here’s the thing, will the Academy see this movie and forever think of Lily James as that one actor to nominate every single year no matter what she does? I’m not sure how much longer Streep has in terms of her career, but if you consider how many times she’s been nominated for some award throughout her life, it only makes me wonder how many James is bound to get down the road.
But in all seriousness, I feel like the only things I can truly appreciate in “Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again” is that it exceeded my expectations, it was well choreographed at times, and it had some neat location choices. Other than that, it’s just a bunch of sequences shot on a camera placed together in a certain order for the sake of calling something a movie. It’s not good, and while I’m not in the target audience, I gotta be honest, I just didn’t think this was worth my time.
In the end, “Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again,” spectacle-wise, doesn’t fail to impress, but on every other level, it’s not on par with what I’d call a proper movie. I mean, it has its audience, they might as well enjoy the film, good for them. This movie to me however, it was boring, although in reality, it ended in a much quicker rate than I thought it would. Maybe it’s because it almost felt like nothing happened. If it weren’t for a few pluses sprinkled in or seeing this movie in IMAX, I probably would have lost all sanity. With that being said, I’m going to give “Mamma Mia!: Here We Go Again” a 4/10. Thanks for reading this review! This Wedneday I’m going to see “Skyscraper,” so expect a review for that pretty soon, and speaking of that, be sure to follow my blog so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, have you seen “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again,” what are your thoughts on it? Or, which of the “Mamma Mia!” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 