Thriller

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024): An Unnecessary, Overpriced, Frustrating Sequel That Falls Flat On Its Face

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.

Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.

I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”

There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.

I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.

It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.

I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.

Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.

You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.

Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.

But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.

Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.

For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.

There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.

The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.

For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.

This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.

In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” 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 “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Borderlands (2024): Boring Blands

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

Hint, on that last part, it sucks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Instigators (2024): Wicked Average

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Instigators” is directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Jumper) and stars Matt Damon (The Martian, Good Will Hunting), Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea, Gone Baby Gone), Hong Chau (Kinds of Kindness, The Menu), Michael Stuhlbarg (Call Me by Your Name, The Shape of Water), Paul Walter Hauser (Cobra Kai, Inside Out 2) Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible), Alfred Molina (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Spider-Man 2), Toby Jones (Frost/Nixon, W), Jack Harlow (White Men Can’t Jump), and Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Pinocchio). This film is about two men who go on the run with a therapist after a heist does not go as planned.

As someone who has lived in Massachusetts all his life, it should not come as a surprise that I have a few Boston-based movies under my belt. Movies like “The Departed,” “Good Will Hunting,” “Spotlight,” “Ted,” “Patriots Day,” “Stronger…” Granted I still have not seen everything like “Mystic River,” “Black Mass,” “Gone Baby Gone…” Still waiting to get around to those. But as someone from this area, I feel it is my duty to check out a Boston-based film when possible, which is one reason why I saw “The Instigators” recently.

Sadly though, I cannot say I was that excited for this movie. The trailer failed to impress me, and I did not think this movie was going to do that well.

There are times where I almost forgot I had to review this movie, which is really weird when you consider my experience with it. This is a true story… When I saw this film on opening Thursday night, I am not making this up, my theater was decked to the brim with “The Instigators” posters. If this were my bedroom, you would think I have an unhealthy obsession with this movie. That should probably give you some indication as to how my experience went down.

For the record, I do not despise “The Instigators,” but I also cannot say it is worth your time either. This is one of those movies that barely kept me awake as it went. Does it have a good pace to it? Sure. Do I like the cast in the movie? Sure. Do I think the movie has some clever moments? Sure. But everything about the overall experience of the film just screams middle of the road. There is nothing outright amazing about “The Instigators,” especially when compared to other Boston titles like “The Departed.” If I was in a Boston mood and I wanted to truly pay attention to every single detail on screen, I would simply turn on “The Departed.” But as for “The Instigators,” the situation in which I most likely see myself watching this movie again in the future would probably be when I just need some background noise. Part of me wants to say that I could maybe catch the movie on cable and just leave it on, but I highly doubt that Apple is going to allow that to happen. I do not think they are in that kind of business.

Now as someone who resides on the North Shore of the Bay State, I do fit into some local stereotypes. I do enjoy Dunkin’, I buy a ticket to a ballgame at Fenway, I have used the term “Storrowed” every once in a while, and I have even had the privilege of seeing a couple Boston Marathons in person. When I was in college the Boston Marathon route went right by my campus, so I took advantage of my commuter parking pass and got to see the event play out a couple times. Heck, I went to see this movie IN THE ONLY THEATER TECHNICALLY IN BOSTON, not any of its suburbs, selling tickets for it! But I have to be real with you, as much as I try, to varying successes and failures, to maintain my local roots, I have to admit this movie does a good job linking itself to the Greater Boston culture. When I say this however, I should also say, the movie almost does… TOO GOOD of a job. Sometimes the outcome this movie provides when it comes to its Boston tributes, if you can call them that, is almost pornographic. Whether it means Alfred Molina randomly showing up with Dunkin’, getting Rob Gronkowski of all people to make a rather gratuitous cameo, or having Hong Chau’s character mention she’s from Lynn during a chase and having the other characters say “Lynn Lynn the City of sin” just because. Though I must admit, there is a scene in the movie where we see a protest outside of Boston City Hall and I almost burst out laughing as soon as I saw a sign that read “FIX THE MBTA!”.

It is almost as if the crew behind this movie decided to ingrain themselves so heavily in Boston culture to the point where they sort of built a decent atmosphere for the film, but did not have the brains on how to make the film as entertaining as can be. Because as I look back at this film, I find to be uneventful, unmemorable, and minimally engaging. I cannot say I hate any of the characters on screen, but I am not going to remember their names in six months.

That said, this film is led by Matt Damon and Casey Affleck, and the two, to my lack of surprise, have decent chemistry in their roles. They both do a good job as two guys from Quincy, and even though I admit their journeys in this film fall into some pits of predictability, I enjoyed seeing their motivations play out and their personalities come to life. But when you have these two leading a movie like this, I kind of expect something more from the script or the plot, or even the direction.

Heck, this movie is directed by Doug Liman, whose resume partially includes “The Bourne Identity” and “Edge of Tomorrow,” which like those movies or not, you would probably agree with me when I say they look pretty cinematic. This movie honestly looks like it was made for television between its lighting that appears as if the crew forgot to brighten the bulb a tad occasionally. Yet at other times, it has some unusual camera tricks that try to appear cinematic, but only manage to feel jarring the longer I gaze my eyes upon them.

If I had to pick a performance in the film that stood out to me the most, it would probably be Ron Perlman as Mayor Miccelli. At a glance, Perlman very much looks the part of a politician. He has this look to him that like some politicians, you question yourself in the back of your mind on whether or not to trust him. His presence in the film made for some good scenes, especially towards the end.

And you know what? This is a poetic transition. If I had anything else to say that is positive about the film, I must admit, I was not 100% thrilled with all that it had to offer, but there are several scenes where you can easily be entertained by these characters. The entire cast oozes charisma, even if they are playing characters whose names you will probably erase from your memory after leaving the theater. Is part of it because some of the actors in the cast are recognizable? Perhaps. Why do you think I am going about this review referring to the actors names but not acknowledging their respective characters? But like some of their previous work, those recognizable actors play their parts well here. However, for me, this film was missing something. If anything the film is almost too stereotypical and lacking in any oomph that will make audiences remember it for years to come.

In the end, “The Instigators” is a somewhat entertaining movie, but it is not one that had me engaged the entire time. As the heist goes down, I am interested in what is going on. But I cannot say there are any standout moments in this film that will cement it as one of my favorites of the year. Does everyone in the cast do a good job? Again, sure. But they are not Oscar-worthy. This movie is on Apple TV+, and I can frankly see why. I have to be real, their record has not been working for me. Other than “CODA,” which is amazing, I cannot say I have seen one movie from Apple yet, and I include “Killers of the Flower Moon” in this thought, that has totally floored me. If you were planning on watching “The Instigators,” I am here to tell you your time will not be completely wasted, but you can probably use that time to do other things that would be more exciting. I am going to give “The Instigators” a 5/10.

“The Instigators” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Apple TV+ for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews like this, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sing Sing,” “Borderlands,” “Skincare,” “My Old Ass,” “Reagan,” and “It Ends with Us.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Instigators?” What did you think about it? Or, since I clearly have no faith in their service, what is something you recommend on Apple TV+? Yes, I know they’ve got shows like “Ted Lasso,” “Severance,” “For All Mankind,” but I want to specifically ask if there are any movies from them that you enjoyed. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Twisters (2024): You Don’t Face Your Fears, You Forget About Them After Leaving the Theatre

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Twisters” is directed by Lee Isaac Chung (Minari, The Mandalorian) and stars Daisy Edgar-Jones (Normal People, Under the Banner of Heaven), Glen Powell (Top Gun: Maverick, Anyone But You), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Brandon Perea (Nope, The OA), Maura Tierney (NewsRadio, ER), and Sasha Lane (Loki, American Honey). This is a standalone sequel to the 1996 film “Twister,” and is about a former tornado chaser who comes to Oklahoma with a meteorologist to scan tornados.

While there are a fair share of original movies being made, it is also accurate to say that franchise continuations tend to stand out more nowadays than said originals. This even includes “Twisters,” a movie I have been looking forward to since the first trailer came out. Between the aura of Glen Powell, the energetic vibes, the riveting tornado shots, and a pinch of that summer blockbuster feel, I was stoked. But here’s the thing, at the time, I have still yet to watch the original “Twister.”

I may have heard “Twisters” was happening prior to the Super Bowl, but chances are I did not care about it. Why? Well, it is the same reason why I have yet to see “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.” It is the same reason why I am probably not going to see “Alien: Romulus” in the theater. As good as those movies look, I have some catching up to do when it comes to those properties. Thankfully, unlike the several movies both of those franchises offer, “Twister” only has one film for me to worry about. And as for that 1996 original movie, I thought it was rather fun. It had some immersive camerawork, a decent cast, a good amount of tornado action, and at times, an incredible score by Mark Mancina.

How does this standalone sequel compare to the original? I mean… It is fine I guess. It has its moments. I would not exactly rave about it, but I do not hate it. “Twisters” is kind of like Sbarro pizza. It is not the best of its class, but if it were one of the only options, I would tolerate its existence. Did I have fun with “Twisters” while watching it? Of course I did. And I would say that I am glad I watched this film in a theater as opposed to my house for the first time. This is definitely the kind of movie you would want to see on a giant screen, perhaps with a few friends. I cannot completely confirm or deny as I saw the film by myself, but still, that is the vibe I got.

“Twisters” pays respect to its predecessor. This was something I heard going into this movie, and was honestly quite worried about. Part of me was worried that this would be a beat for beat remake. While it is not quite as beat for beat as the 2019 edition of “The Lion King,” “Twisters” has a lot of similarities to its 1996 counterpart. There is a scene in a movie theater, kind of like how the original had a scene in a drive-in. The line in this film, “We got twins,” is very much a tribute to 1996’s “We got cows.” It’s little things like those that can easily be picked up along the way if you pay enough attention. Speaking of repeated techniques, “Twisters” is shot entirely on 35mm film. The average viewer is probably not going to care about a detail like that, but as I watched the movie, it definitely had a rugged palette in every frame. Even if the frame looked clean, it still had a sense of character to it that put me into each scene. With that in mind, I would still claim “Twisters” has enough material in it for the movie to stand on its own. It definitely feels like it belongs in the same universe as its predecessor, but by no means is it a complete ripoff despite some degree of copy and pasting.

One of the differences between this film and the original however, is the cast. This time around, there is, by complete coincidence, only one cast member from the original movie who returns for this follow-up. And they do not even play the same character. Instead, we have room for new stars including Daisy-Edgar Jones, who is finely cast in the lead role of Kate. You have Anthony Ramos, who brings a lot of energy to the screen as Javi. But if you see this movie yourself, chances are you are going to agree that there is one true star of the show…. Glen Powell as Tyler Owens.

Some argue that the movie star is dead, but if there is anyone who could potentially defeat that argument, Glen Powell is honestly a contender. As much as I hated “Anyone But You,” I thought Powell was far and away the best part of the film. Much like that movie, he oozes an endless stream of charisma. Every line out of him is perfectly delivered. His presence is incredible. If I had to come up with a word or two to describe Powell in “Twisters,” it would be “rockstar.” The moment he steps on screen, it is almost like this movie finished its opening act, and now he comes out and unleashes a sense of star power that is almost indescribable. I have no desire to ride a tornado. It is not my thing, but if anyone were to convince me I should, Tyler Owens might be the guy. Of course, there are still movie stars out there who have developed their career to a high like Dwayne Johnson, Tom Cruise, Ryan Reynolds… They have been on the scene for years and to some degree, they are all able to get butts into seats. After seeing “Twisters,” I am convinced Glen Powell is going to be looked back on years from now as one of this generation’s most adored talents. If there is a movie coming out that doesn’t exactly look great, I am sure it will get a boost at the box office if you simply put Powell’s face on the poster.

I also like the background behind Powell’s character. The movie establishes that Tyler Owens is a successful YouTuber. Owens has built a channel documenting his storm chases, earning him the nickname, “Tornado Wrangler.” He definitely delivers the energy you would expect out of a popular YouTuber or vlogger, I think Powell did a good job at channeling the traits I am used to seeing from some of my favorite personalities. The one thing though I would note is that Owens probably needs to work on his copyright game. Now, on YouTube, you can probably have some videos with copywritten material fly depending on the circumstances. There are times they can go unacknowledged or the owner of such material may not even care. But typically, it is wise for creators, especially for those trying to make money on their videos, to use royalty free music in their content, unlike Owens, who is making a video while blasting a copywritten song in the background. Just something that I noticed during the film that I probably would have changed if I were in control. I think it would have been funny to have Owens playing some fairly often used Kevin MacLeod song. It would have caught me really off guard in a good way.

Though I have to be real, much like the original “Twister,” this movie is probably not going to have much replay value for me. Am I glad I saw “Twisters?” Yes. Especially considering I saw it in the theater. But compared to the original, while “Twisters” is definitely equal in its own right when it comes to star power, feels a tad weaker when it comes to characterization. But at the same time, the characters do to a degree feel fairly fleshed out. The script is not really anything to write home about. The biggest thing this movie has going for it is Glen Powell’s personality. Honestly, his aura stands out more than the tornados themselves. That said, the sound is quite immersive. The film is decently shot. And it definitely has a fun factor to it. It is a fine movie to watch in order to kill a couple hours and maybe never watch again. You will not have any regrets watching this movie, but maybe not a ton of fond memories in the years down the road depending on your viewing experience.

In the end, “Twisters,” as a theatrical experience, is definitely one you would not want to miss. If it is playing in a theater near you, I would totally justify going to watch it. But this might just be a one and done film. There is not a ton of flair to it. It is not the best film of the year, nor is it the worst. For me, it is somewhere in the middle. I think the original is a slightly better experience, but if you do enjoy the original, you might enjoy this one to some degree as well. I am going to give “Twisters” a 6/10.

“Twisters” is now playing in theaters and is available to buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the latest entry to the MCU and one of my most anticipated movies of the year. You will have to find out next week if it lives up to the hype. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” 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 “Twisters?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Twister” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Quiet Place: Day One (2024): The Most Thrilling Quiet Place Film Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Quiet Place: Day One” is written and directed by Michael Sarnoski (Pig, The Testimony) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 12 Years a Slave), Joseph Quinn (Stranger Things, Dickensian), Alex Wolff (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Hereditary), and Djimon Hounsou (Guardians of the Galaxy, Gladiator). This film is a prequel set in the “Quiet Place” universe and it is set during the first day a bunch of supersonic-hearing creatures known as the Death Angels touch down on earth. With the stakes getting higher as she goes, it is up to to a young woman named Sam to navigate around New York City and do all she can to survive this unfamiliar situation.

I love New York City. Honestly, if you were to ask me what my favorite place in the world happens to be, chances are that New York City could take the cake. It is rich in history, has a solid transit system, there are plenty of things to do, and there’s lots of great food everywhere you look from many different walks of life.

By the way, if you and I are in New York City, do not even dare suggest we go eat at the Times Square Olive Garden. I’ve got Olive Garden at home, and as an Italian, there are so many other places I’d rather spend my time and money. Now with my brief snobbery out of the way, let’s talk about how this links to “A Quiet Place: Day One.” This movie just so happens to be set in New York City. And I think for a story like this, it is the perfect location. Because as much as I love New York City, one common complaint I found from venturing certain parts of the city, especially around midtown, is the noise. There’s lots of people, lots of honking, lots of background chatter. If you are looking for quiet parts of NYC, they definitely exist. I’ve been in a couple. But if you go in the busier or more active parts of the city, do not expect an oasis of serenity. Now with these creatures coming down to earth, this presents New York’s absolute epitome of a threat because it is near impossible to be quiet there.

That said, in the back of my mind, I was a tad hesitant when they were making a “Quiet Place” prequel. For starters, “A Quiet Place Part II” was a step down from the original for me, so I was somewhat worried that this could suffer from also being a lesser product. But on top of that, John Krasinski is not directing this time around. Not only has Krasinski proven to be a great actor-turned-director in recent years, but this franchise is practically his baby. He has done a ton of work in front of the camera, and even more behind the camera. Yet at the same time, the more I think about it, maybe this is exactly what this property needed. A fresh idea from a fresh face. Sure, Krasinski is still involved, given how he has a story by credit. But this film is also written and directed by Michael Sarnoski, who previously helmed “Pig” starring Nicolas Cage. Honestly, maybe this whole shakeup behind the screens and shift in the timeline was worth it, because I have to say this is my favorite “Quiet Place” movie yet. It brings something new to the franchise we have not seen yet, but it does so without steering too far away from what makes the other movies enjoyable.

Now, I will admit, the first “Quiet Place” has a feel to it that can best be described as groundbreaking. It is a very simple story with concepts that feel familiar, but the execution comes off like nothing I have ever seen. Not only was it a movie that was able to immerse me in a world of complete silence, but as an audience member, the film prompted me to remain silent myself. Not that I fail to do that during my moviegoing adventures, but as someone who gets a popcorn and soda whenever I go to the movies, I could not help but slowly dissolve said popcorn with my tongue or take small sips of said soda when the opportunities presented themselves. This is a feeling that returned with “A Quiet Place Part II,” and I could say the same happened here at times. But of the three movies released in this franchise so far, I think this is the one that probably emitted such a feeling the least. For one thing, it takes some time to get into the nitty gritty. This film is fantastically paced, but nevertheless, it takes some time for the action to go down. Also, this is a prequel film set when this whole universe’s primary inciting incident first occurs. So, we see that people are not even close to adapting to the environment we see in the other films.

The “Quiet Place” franchise is a case in point as to the whole show don’t tell philosophy of filmmaking, and “A Quiet Place: Day One” continues that trend. Not only did just about every line of the minimally spoken script come off as essential to the story, but this film’s cast all do a good job at delivering said lines. Lupita Nyong’o is one of the finest actresses working today, and this is yet another win on her resume. She puts on quite a marvelous performance as the character of Sam. But like a lot of good movies with great performances, the script certainly does her favors. Nyong’o’s character is well written. We find out she has late-stage cancer, has a therapy cat, and the movie does a good job at getting you to feel sympathy for her. You really want to see her succeed, even if part of her end goal involves simply getting to eat pizza in the city, particularly at Patsy’s, a joint in Harlem.

In several franchises, there is often a tendency, for better or worse, to make the films that follow the previous ones bigger in scale. There’s often the saying, bigger is better, which if you have read my review for “The Matrix Reloaded,” that is not entirely true. Of the three “Quiet Place” movies, “A Quiet Place: Day One” certainly feels the biggest of them all. In fact, if you look at the numbers, they just go onto support my case. “A Quiet Place: Day One” cost $67 million to make. That is $6 million more than “A Quiet Place Part II.” Of course, this prequel has a decent number of actors in its cast compared to the original, which cost $17 million. After all, people gotta eat.

Each of these movies are all tied together by one key motivation for the characters, and that is to survive against the Death Angels. That has not changed in this film, and honestly, what makes this adventure so riveting is knowing that our heroes, or even innocent civilians, have to adapt to their new environment. In the other “Quiet Place” movies, our characters are caught somewhere in the middle of their respective life-altering event. Seeing such an event play out from the very beginning only makes me wonder if these characters, who for the most part, we do not see in the other movies, make it from point A to B. They do not have the experience necessary to deal with these creatures, so it makes the journey perhaps a little more intense. I love the chemistry we see between Sam and Eric. They make for a good duo. There was one key scene in the middle of the film between these two that is going to stick with me for a long time. It is a simple moment of bonding, but it is done so well.

While I still consider the first film to be the scariest of the franchise, partially because of its novelty, I would have to say “A Quiet Place: Day One” is probably the best character piece of this series. It fleshes out its human characters perfectly, and gives you plenty of background for them, especially for the lead. For these reasons in particular, I can see myself watching this film a second and third time down the road. This is one of my favorite films of the year, and for all I know, it could end up being my favorite horror title of the year if things go in a certain direction.

In the end, “A Quiet Place: Day One” is scary, exciting, and a win for the franchise that I frankly was not expecting. I did not know if this movie was going to be any good going into it. The trailers were not bad, but they did not fully win me over either. The feel of this film was a lot different than I was expecting it to be going in, but little did I know that such a different feel is something that would pay off magnificently. The biggest compliment I can give “A Quiet Place: Day One” is that after the film, it made me want pizza.

And yes, I did get pizza afterwards. I drove quite a distance from my theater to the restaurant, but it was worth it, because it was delicious. I am going to give “A Quiet Place: Day One” an 8/10.

“A Quiet Place: Day One” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews like this, believe me when I tell you I have more coming. I will soon be sharing my thoughts on “MaXXXine,” “Twisters,” “Deadpool & Wolverine,” “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” and “Sing Sing.” 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 “A Quiet Place: Day One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the “Quiet Place” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Boy Kills World (2023): Bill Skarsgård Lets the Bodies Hit the Floor in This Adrenaline Rush of an Action Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Boy Kills World” is directed by Moritz Mohr (Akumi, Ronin 2035) and stars Bill Skarsgård (Malignant, It), Jessica Rothe (Mary + Jane, Happy Death Day), Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey, Good Behavior), Brett Gelman (Stranger Things, Fleabag), Isaiah Mustafa (It Chapter Two, Murder at Yellowstone City), Yahan Ruhian (Warrior, Bullet Train), Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Monkey Man), H. Jon Benjamin (Bob’s Burgers, Archer), and Famke Janssen (X-Men, Taken). This film is set in a dystopian time and is about a deaf and mute person who is trained to become an instrument of death. Now he must use all that he knows to achieve revenge over the murder of his family.

If I were to make a top 10 most anticipated movies of 2024 list at the beginning of the year, there is a solid chance “Boy Kills World” probably would not have been on there. Why? Because I had no idea about it. But had I seen the marketing for it at the beginning of the year, I probably would have considered sliding it into one of the spots, or at least noting it as an honorable mention. “Boy Kills World” looked like a bloody good time. And if you put Bill Skarsgård, one of this generation’s great actors together with H. Jon Benjamin, one of this generation’s great voiceover artists, you may have a recipe for a winning combo. On paper, this sounds like my kind of movie. In execution, this is most certainly my kind of movie. It is like if “Deadpool” had a baby “John Wick: Chapter 4” and it just so happened to be set in a environment straight out of “The Hunger Games.” I am not even a huge “Hunger Games” fan, but my god, is this movie delicious…

“Boy Kills World” is as simple as can be when it comes to the premise. Basically, a guy has to survive against his enemies all to get to a specific person he needs to kill. But the way this movie goes about it is unbelievably satisfying. Technically speaking, this movie has a color palette that bridges a gap between grit and fantasy… Fluid camerawork that flawlessly showcases an endless series of incredible action sequences from start to finish… And on top of that, some surprisingly intricate and palatable production design. For a movie set in a dystopian future, I was pleasantly surprised to know how much pizazz said future has.

The costume design in this film is a bit of a standout to me. It is kind of all over the place in terms of color, design, and vibe. But the movie somehow makes all of those costumes feel consistent with one another. Each costume suits the characters’ personalities in addition to the personality of the movie itself.

Going back to the “Deadpool” meets “John Wick” comparison, this movie, much like those, involves our main character looking for a little payback in honor of those he loves. Also like both movies, our protagonist, in this case, Boy, is a mastermind when it comes to killing. The stellar choreography we see from him certainly adds to the thrills as well. And much like “John Wick: Chapter 4,” I found this movie to be very video game-esque. Every other moment, our protagonist has something new to fend off, and each time, it is done with a lovingly quick pace. The action not only looks great, but it is to some degree, nonstop. In fact, one could argue that this movie is more video game-like than “John Wick: Chapter 4,” because the main character does not speak. You ever play a video game like “The Legend of Zelda” or “Portal” where everyone has lines except for the main character? That’s what this movie reminds me of. Except in this case, unlike say Link from “The Legend of Zelda,” we actually get some context fed to us as to why Boy does not speak, and it works.

The closest we get to the main character speaking is H. Jon Benjamin being a guiding voice for our protagonist, and he does an excellent job all the way through. He has a lot of lines in this movie. While I sometimes complain about actors, particularly in voiceover roles, playing themselves like Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart practically did in “DC League of Super-Pets,” I am going to give H. Jon Benjamin a pass because there is an endless sense of energy in his performance. He is one of the best parts of this movie, and we do not even see him! On top of that, if you have never heard H. Jon Benjamin’s voice, turn on any episode of “Bob’s Burgers” right now because he is legendary. There is a saying in film that you should show instead of tell. That should always be the priority. But if you want to know how much I enjoyed this movie, I will remind you that H. Jon Benjamin’s “telling” is probably some of the coolest I have witnessed in cinematic history. He can make anything sound epic, and he is only helped by a dynamite script.

It only makes sense that someone like H. Jon Benjamin would have a voiceover role in this film, because not only does it feel like a video game, it has a lot of cartoony elements. Yes, the movie is live-action. But going back to the costumes, the movie rides a fine line with them to the point where they feel authentic, but fantasy-like. The violence is over the top, creative, and bloody to no end. A lot of the dialogue is expressive, comedic, and leans into an occasional digression here and there. Also, one of the key points of this movie is the Culling, which gathers 12 people who are going to be murdered on live television. The way the movie goes about handling something like this, to my surprise, makes me buy it. If you ever watch live sports, you would notice how riddled they are with commercialism and sponsorships. When we get to the Culling, we find out the assigned killers are dressed as breakfast cereal mascots. I do not want to see a future where we have deadly events like this. But if we ever get to that point, I can see a timeline where something like this happens. After all, people need to get paid, and big corporations need to sell cereal. It’s a win win. And in “Boy Kills World’s” favor, it adds to the humor of it all despite the movie being dark and gory. There is a fun side to it.

This movie is not only killer when it comes to style, but it slays when comes to substance. Story-wise, the movie does a good job at letting us get to know about not just our protagonist, but it also does the same when it comes to handling his sister. I thought she was a standout. From the marketing, this looks like a movie that was going to deliver on action, maybe let the story take a back seat. But no, I was pleasantly surprised by how invested I became in the plot, and the details of our protagonist. This movie has multiple winning combos. A revenge tale mixed with a dystopian vibe. One of this generation’s great physical actors mixed with one of this generation’s great voice talents. And on top of the sick action, you have an admirable story. What more could you want out of a movie like this?

In the end, it is a shame that “Boy Kills World” only made 3 million bucks at the box office, because it is one of my favorite films of the year so far. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite comedies of last year, “Bottoms,” not only because it delivers on laughs, but because it is set in a world that makes up an occasionally absurd set of rules that I can somehow buy into. If you want to see action that pushes the limits, this movie is for you. If you are not a fan of blood, violence, gore, or seeing people get killed in creative ways, maybe stay away from this one. But I am a sick person, so this movie was certainly for me. I am going to give “Boy Kills World” an 8/10.

“Boy Kills World” is unfortunately, not playing in many theaters right now. I checked for showtimes in Los Angeles and New York City and could not find anything. If you live where I live, in Massachusetts, there is one theater playing it in Rockport right now. Not sure where else it is playing. But if it is playing near you, see it. I endorse this film. Otherwise, you can preorder it right now to watch on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Challengers!” Stay tuned! Also, be sure to check out my reviews for “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” “IF,” and “The Garfield Movie.” 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 “Boy Kills World?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw this year you wish more people were aware of? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Civil War (2024): Alex Garland’s Most Dramatically Immersive Film Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Civil War” is directed by Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and stars Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man, Wimbledon), Wagner Moura (Elite Squad, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish), Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla, Pacific Rim: Uprising), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Dune, Lady Bird), Sonoya Mizuno (House of the Dragon, Devs), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder). This film is set in a dystopian future United States and centers around a group of people trying to make it to Washington, DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

As I have said on this blog before, some of my favorite directors working today include Christopher Nolan, Damien Chazelle, and Quentin Tarantino. Those are usually the big three that come to mind. Although one director I happen to admire somewhere down that list is Alex Garland. I love his directorial debut, “Ex Machina.” A film that has become increasingly relevant and captivating with age. Looking back at his sophomore directorial effort, “Annihilation,” I think that film is a slight step down. But there is a lot that works in that film. Visually, it is uniquely stunning. Natalie Portman does a great job in the lead role. As an experience, I found parts of the film trippy, intriguing, and even a little terrifying. Looking back, it also has one of the better musical scores of the past decade. As for Alex Garland’s next movie, “Men,” I cannot say I hated it… In a thumbs up, thumbs down world, it is a thumbs up. The actors do a good job. The color palette and overall aesthetic pops. But it felt like there was something missing from that film. It lacked an oomph of sorts. Naturally, I was curious about “Civil War.” Even with that in mind, I was not fully sure where to set my expectations. I thought this movie could go one way or another. It was either gonna stand out in such a positive way or in such a negative way. Turns out, it does both.

“Civil War” is not a movie I am going to recommend for everyone. If you are looking to have a good time, then maybe go see something else. I am not saying that “Civil War” is a terrible movie. It is far from being bad. But if anything, it reminds me of when I watched say “12 Years a Slave,” which to a certain degree, is not the happiest watch. The two movies are completely different in terms of plot and execution, but they deliver similar feelings of uneasiness. This movie made me feel genuinely uncomfortable. There are scenes in this film where I am tittering in my seat because the context of said scene is frankly disturbing to say the least. And honestly, and I mean this as a compliment in regards to “Civil War,” some of those scenes feel real. Or if not real, genuine enough to the point where I believe it could happen. This is especially true for one scene that has caught my attention since first watching the trailer.

If you saw the marketing for “Civil War,” you have probably seen Jesse Plemons on screen. He plays an ultranationalist and he owns the role to the tenth degree. I am sure Plemons is the nicest of guys in real life, but I would never want to come across this character in my travels. His portrayal of this character, simply known as “Soldier,” is delivered with subtlety, but even his calm mannerisms pack a punch. Whenever he is on screen, I am simply waiting to hear a pin drop, or anything else that would get me to jump out of my chair. I know I just saw “Abigail,” which by definition, is a horror movie prominently featuring a vampire. But I have to be real, compared to Abigail, Plemons’s character is nightmare fuel.

The strongest point for “Civil War” is how easy it is for me to feel like I’m in the middle of the action. I saw this movie in IMAX, and of the IMAX experiences I had, this is one of the more interesting ones. Because when I go to IMAX, I go for the thrills, the chills, and the excitement that, like the opening countdown suggests, CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGES and EARTH-SHATTERING SOUND can bring. This movie was almost too loud at times, but I also think that from Garland’s point of view, that was on purpose. The gunfire, explosions, and all the other ruckus of war were dialed up to an 11 to the point where I felt like I was there. Part of me assumed I was actually in the moment with Kirsten Dunst or whoever else was on screen at the time.

Kirsten Dunst plays Lee (left rear), a photojournalist. When it comes to defining a main character for “Civil War,” it seems as if there are limited solid options on the table. This movie is a controversy generator, but I will note that when it comes to selecting a main character, a photojournalist like Lee is a smart choice. Lee is active enough to the point where she is technically involved in the war, but her job basically keeps her from picking a side. Dunst is well cast in the role and delivers quite a performance. She does a good job.

The film may be called “Civil War,” but at its core, you could argue that this film is essentially a road trip movie. It is about a group of characters trying to get from point A to point B with the intentions of running into as few obstacles as possible. Along for the ride is Wagner Moura as Joel (right front), a Reuters journalist. Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (left front), a New York Times journalist and Lee’s mentor, and Cailee Spaeny as Jessie Cullen (right rear), an aspiring photographer. All of these actors fit into their roles nicely and have good chemistry. Casting-wise, this movie hit the jackpot.

As I said earlier, “Civil War” is a movie that stands out to me in both a positive and negative way. In addition to the balance between the thrills and all around discomfort this movie brings to the table, this notion also stands true for its technical aspects. I have already talked about how the sound does its job while also coming off as one of the movie’s drawbacks. But much like the sound, the film editing has my brain driving itself in circles.

There are points in this movie that had me thinking to myself that the editing is not just great, it is a contender to win an Oscar next year. In fact, the editing in this film, in addition to being perfectly paced, spectacularly highlights the power of photojournalism. This is something that is personal to me as someone who has spent the past year working in news, but also as someone who has taken journalism classes in college. But if I have one thing to say about the final edit, it is that there are a couple of music choices that are about out of left field. I think the film’s music, for the most part, works. But there are one or two instances where I found myself perplexed.

As for the film’s reflectiveness of our society, obviously there are moments that feel genuine enough that remind me of the world we live in today. But as for the idea that California and Texas could unite in war anytime soon, I found that to be a bit of a fantasy. At the same time though, I do not entirely care that they are in this war together. If this film felt more genuine than it is, chances are it would generate more controversy than it already unleashing amongst its audiences. I went to see a movie with a friend of mine in March. One of the trailers was for “Civil War.” Based on what she saw, she thought this movie should never have happened. Based on her words, I gathered she thought a movie like this could potentially be dangerous. Personally, I can see where she is coming from. This is why, again, if you are looking for are a looking for an escape, maybe this is not the movie for you. As for me, I think “Civil War” is one of the better films of the year. It is not quite on the level of say “Dune Part Two,” but much like that recent science fiction masterpiece, “Civil War” is technically powerful and delivers a one of a kind experience.

In the end, “Civil War” is not going to be a film I will end up watching on a Friday night anytime soon, but I am glad I checked it out. It is a film that is huge in scope, massive in world-building, but in terms of the overall premise, it is as simple as can be. The story is nothing more than just journeying from point A to B and making sure nobody dies along the way. The cast is well-rounded and marvelously put together. Jesse Plemons, despite not having an official credit, practically steals the show. Nick Offerman also does a good job as the President. I thought he fit the role perfectly. The film is not flawless. In fact, even the aspects of the movie that lean more positive have some glaring negatives attached. When it comes to ranking the Alex Garland movies, this is not as enthralling as “Ex Machina” or as exciting as “Annihilation,” but it is certainly more memorable than “Men.” I am going to give “Civil War” a 7/10.

“Civil War” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! While a lot of people ended up seeing “Civil War” when it came out, my next review on the other hand is for a film that practically no one bothered to watch. That my friends, is “Boy Kills World,” which only made a few million dollars at the box office. I am proud to be one of the lucky individuals that had the pleasure of watching this experience of a flick. I cannot wait to share my thoughts on it with you all. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Civil War?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Alex Garland movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Abigail (2024): Another Epic Win for the Directing Team Behind Ready or Not

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Abigail” is directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet, the same directing team behind the last two “Scream” films and “Ready or Not.” The film stars Melissa Barrera (Scream, Vida), Dan Stevens (Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Lisa Frankenstein), Will Catlett (Love Is, Black Lightning), Kevin Durand (The Strain, Dark Angel), Angus Cloud (Euphoria, Your Lucky Day), Alisha Weir (Matilda the Musical, Fia’s Fairies), and Giancarlo Esposito (Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, Breaking Bad). This film is mostly set in a house where a group of criminals who kidnapped the ballerina daughter of a powerful underworld figure come to the realization that there is more to this girl than meets the eye.

Before we begin this review, I want to remind everyone that if I had to name a favorite horror movie of the past five years, chances are my answer would be “Ready or Not,” helmed by this film’s directing duo, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet. What made the film work for me is that in addition to all of the blood, gore, and occasional violence, there was a sense of unease in every scene. And part of it is because of how the script tends to handle Samara Weaving’s character, Grace. Because her situation makes her the outlier amongst a sea of rich, snobby monsters. Specifically, the one where she must win a game of hide and seek to avoid getting killed by recently mentioned rich, snobby monsters.

This time around, Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet are helming a story that comes off as an antithesis of sorts to the “Ready or Not” structure. But it does not mean there are not similarities between the two titles. For one thing, both movies slap. Truthfully, “Abigail” might end up being one of my favorite movies this year. I can say this is some of the most fun I have had at the movies in months. If you are looking for something that will make you laugh, grab your attention, and question everything that is going on, “Abigail” might be a great watch for you.

What makes “Abigail” different from “Ready or Not?” For one thing, whereas “Ready or Not” is a tale of one against many, “Abigail” is a tale of many against one. Also, in “Abigail,” we tend to know more about our protagonists’ history of rebelling and breaking the law. “Ready or Not’s” Grace, as far as the movie can suggest, does not really have much of a criminal history. It is never highlighted, therefore I would have to assume if she did have one, it is not that heavy or important. In other words, Grace seems like a good egg. Much of the movie dives into these characters’ backstories and I would have to say the way they go about it had me engaged. Sometimes, the movie lingers too long on the backstories, in fact, it almost lingers long enough that at times, it had me wondering when exactly the movie is going to get into gear, but it does not change my overall attachment to the characters themselves.

By the way, the cast for this film is quite good. The film is marvelously led by Melissa Barrera, who kills it as the character of Joey. Alongside her, you of course have Kathryn Newton, who is becoming a bit of scream queen now with this movie on her resume in addition to “Lisa Frankenstein” and “Freaky,” both of which I enjoyed. There’s Giancarlo Esposito, who I’ve particularly enjoyed in “The Mandalorian.” I am glad to see him here. This movie is also likely going to introduce a fresh young talent to the world, Alisha Weir.

While she does not have a ton of credits just yet, I have a strong feeling that her performance in “Abigail” as the title character is going to change that. Weir plays a centuries old vampire who takes the form of a 12 year old girl. Oh, and she’s also a ballerina, because why not?… I love this movie. This role gives Weir plenty to bring to the table in terms of her delivery and her physicality. There is always this sense of unpredictability when watching this character. You just never know what she is going to say, what she is going to do, who exactly she is going to kill. Abigail is a beautifully unhinged mastermind of a 12 year old girl. While M3gan is probably going to end up being the more popular “dancing horror villain” by the end of this decade, I think I have a greater fondness for the Abigail character for how much the movie successfully handles its cute but not cuddly approach with her.

Of course, this movie is bloody and gory to the tenth degree. That should not come as much of a surprise. But even with that in mind, part of me could not believe just how much blood and gore this movie delivered at times. But again, I should have seen this coming from the team who did “Ready or Not.” A movie featuring some of the bloodiest explosions of all time. The movie just gets more beautifully disgusting as it goes, then when it hits the climax, oh boy, is it glorious! And much like this duo’s 2019 masterpiece, this film successfully blends horror and comedy to a perfect degree. This movie is scary. Not quite as scary as “Ready or Not,” I would say the terror itself is a bit on the lighter side in certain moments. But the movie is also very clever on the jokes. There are times where I found myself laughing hard. You could almost put this horror movie in a camp category. But the reality is that as I watched this film, every moment felt like it belonged in a story of its kind. There are campy, abnormal moments. But even those felt like moments that I could buy into. This movie made me convinced that in its world, a ballerina vampire like Abigail could exist. The movie clearly plays her up, gives her some over the top lines and exchanges with her fellow castmates, but for some reason, all of it clicks.

If you saw the trailer for “Abigail” and thought that maybe they should have saved the big hook regarding the title character for the movie itself, I kind of get where you are coming from, but as far as I am concerned, that is sort of what sold me from the start. As far as WHAT THEY DO with that hook, I can tell you it makes the movie worth your time and money. I had a great time with this movie, and if you like blood and gore, I am certain you will too.

In the end, “Abigail” is a ton of fun. It kind of takes me back to 2022, because in that year, I just so happened to stumble upon one great horror film after another. From “The Black Phone” to “Smile” to “Pearl.” “Abigail” is on that level for me. After seeing two bloody fantastic original horror titles from Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillet, it only makes more excited for what other tricks they have up their sleeve. Between a newlywed playing hide and seek against her in-laws who are part of a so-called gaming dominion and now a bunch of criminals trying to keep a ballerina vampire at bay, these two are onto something with taking crazy concepts and unleashing their best possible outcome. After seeing “Ready or Not” and now “Abigail,” maybe I will go back and give their “Scream” movies a shot. Who knows? I am going to give “Abigail” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Civil War,” which so far, is one of the year’s most talked about films. Why not have one more voice in the conversation? Also, stay tuned for my reviews for “Boy Kills World,” “Challengers,” “The Fall Guy,” “Tarot,” and “IF.” 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 “Abigail?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Ready or Not?” If not, what are you doing with your life? Let me know your thoughts on the movie if you have seen it down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Monkey Man (2024): Not Quite Bananas Enough for This Guy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Monkey Man” is directed by Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel) who also stars in the film as Kid. The film’s cast also features Sharlto Copley (Hardcore Henry, Maleficent), Pitobash (I Am Kalam, Shor in the City), Vipin Sharma (Taare Zameen Par, Paatal Lok), Sikander Kher (Woodstock Villa, Players), Adithi Kalkunte (Mumbai Diaries, Hotel Mumbai), Sobhita Dhulipala (Made in Heaven, The Night Manger), Ashwini Kalsekar (Jodha Akbar, Kasamh Se), Makarand Deshpande (Dandupalya, Hanan), Jatin Malik, and Zakir Hussain (Heat and Dust, Saaz). This film is about a man who tries to achieve revenge against corrupt leaders who killed his mother and continue to victimize people beneath them.

I first heard about “Monkey Man” just a couple months before its release. What made me really excited for this film is the people behind it. I cannot pretend I know every single name attached to this film, including the incredibly stacked cast I just mentioned in the beginning. But I have a soft spot for Dev Patel as a performer. One of my favorite films of the late 2000s is “Slumdog Millionaire,” where he plays the gripping lead role of Jamal. I believed every second of his performance. I think he is a remarkable talent. Behind the scenes, I did not know what to expect, but I know Patel has plenty of experience in the industry in general, so maybe that could translate to a solid directorial effort with this movie. Prior to releasing this film, he directed two shorts, neither of which I have seen, making “Monkey Man” his feature-length debut. We all have to start somewhere, so maybe I could trust Patel.

That said, I know one guy who probably does trust Patel, and that is none other than “Get Out” director Jordan Peele. The film was originally slated to release on Netflix. But with Peele’s motivation to promote the film and put it under his Monkeypaw Productions label, the film ended up going to theaters. Was the switch worth it? Judging by this movie’s wild action scenes, admirable setpieces, and compelling drama, I would say to some degree you could say it was. But I also feel like there is something missing.

I am not going to lie, this movie bored me in the first half. It took me forever to become totally engaged with what I was watching, which sucks because I like Dev Patel as the lead role and he is clearly pouring his heart and soul into this project. Said heart and soul is most certainly shown in the film’s latter half, which I found more exciting. This movie does have some hypnotizing fight scenes. There is one action sequence in a kitchen that is just as riveting as the trailer promised. And it is held together beautifully by Patel’s sensation of a lead performance. I have not seen all of his work, but this makes me want to go back and watch more of it. His portrayal of Kid very much delivers an attractive roughness to it that feels akin to listening to a hard rock or heavy metal song.

I am not going to pretend every action scene was a standout, but in terms of immersion, the movie sometimes does a good job at putting you in the middle of everything. And I say that despite this movie’s use of shaky cam, which I can find to be a bit of a gimmick. When it comes to my action movies, I will usually prefer them to have more still shots like in “John Wick,” but this movie’s use of shaky was honestly not the worst I have seen. Again, going back to the scene in the kitchen, I honestly felt like I was watching something out of “Tenet,” but with a different kind of intensity. I was waiting for Dev Patel to say “I ordered my hot sauce an hour ago.”

“Monkey Man” is one of the harder movies I had to judge. Partially because I am not of the majority when it comes to my opinion. Both the critic and audience scores are sitting in the 80s on Rotten Tomatoes as of writing this. I am not saying the movie is outright horrible, but the best phrase that I can use to describe this movie is that it is “beautifully forgettable.” The camerawork is not perfect, but a lot of the scenery pops. The shot of Dev Patel inside the open elevator is going to continue to be ingrained in my memory for some time. The color grading is splendidly rugged. The action definitely has its moments. Every actor comes off as if they are giving a hundred and ten percent. Dev Patel is clearly firing on all cylinders in front of and behind the camera. Having seen his efforts here, I hope he continues directing. I also hope he continues writing. Is this the best start for Patel? I would not say that. But his style and approach to filmmaking is one I would like to continue to explore should he decide to helm another project in the future.

In a world of sequels, reboots, and remakes, it is nice to see movies like this where people have a singular vision. Granted, I am not denying there are lots of original movies being made. But even with that in mind, it is cool to see something like this on the big screen. Even if there are familiar elements or beats that I recognize from other movies, the way some of those elements are handled here feel unique to some degree.

While this movie has its differences from “John Wick,” most notably the way action scenes are shot, there are some similarities to point out as well. Both films are quite violent. This movie takes it up to an 11 sometimes. But one of the problems I have with “John Wick” is that sometimes the plot takes a bit of a backseat. I feel the same can be said for “Monkey Man,” which has a good idea for a story, and there are parts of it I liked. At the same time, if that first half were just slightly more interesting, maybe this movie would earn a better score. I did not find myself clicking with every character or situation in the way I wanted to. When I look at “Monkey Man,” I seem to carry a deeper fascination with the lore as opposed to the story itself if that makes any sense. But for me, I am probably looking for a little bit more to satisfy my appetite than what I got here.

In the end, “Monkey Man” is not a movie I would watch a second time. It is not even one I particularly would give a thumbs up to. But weirdly enough, I am glad I saw it simply because I think Dev Patel has potential as a feature film director. There are parts of this movie that work. If you are looking for good action scenes and that is all you want, then maybe this would be a movie for you. But for whatever reason, it was not for me. My one hope is that if Dev Patel has a writing credit next time around, which in this case he shares with a couple other people, it is for a script that is more engaging than what we got here. That said, having seen this movie, I can say that if I read some of these ideas on paper, I would be sold in an instant. But I think when it comes to bringing those ideas to the screen, that is a different story. Maybe I would watch it again as background noise. Maybe I’ll look up one of the action scenes on YouTube. But I cannot say I am going to actively seek this movie to watch on a Friday night when I have nothing else to do. I am going to give “Monkey Man” a 5/10.

“Monkey Man” is now playing in theaters. It is also available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror movie “Abigail.” I have been DYING to talk about this flick for a long time. I saw it last month, and could not stop thinking about it since. Look forward to my thoughts coming soon. 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 “Monkey Man?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Dev Patel performance? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!