“A Complete Unknown” is directed by James Mangold (Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Logan) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Interstellar), Edward Norton (The Incredible Hulk, Fight Club), Elle Fanning (The Neon Demon, Maleficent), Monica Barbaro (FUBAR, Top Gun: Maverick), Boyd Holbrook (Narcos, The Sandman), Dan Fogler (The Goldbergs, The Walking Dead), Norbert Leo Butz (Bloodline, The Exorcist: Believer), and Scoot McNairy (Halt and Catch Fire, Nightbitch). This film is set in much of the 1960s and centers around a young Bob Dylan as he establishes several relationships and creates a series of songs.
Bob Dylan is to music what the “Star Trek” franchise has been over the years to television and movies. He has been relevant since the 1960s, produced a lot of material that has been well regarded, and has somehow managed to maintain even the slightest hint of relevancy up until now. Much like the “Star Trek” franchise, I cannot say that I have the deepest appreciation for Bob Dylan. It is not that I hate Bob Dylan, or “Star Trek” for that matter, it is just that I never find myself circling around to Dylan’s music despite having many options for the taking.
You may remember there was an Amy Winehouse biopic in the middle of 2024 called “Back to Black,” which I gave a positive review. I do not think it was particularly striking or memorable, but I ended up leaning positive on it. It has its moments of fun and does a good job at capturing the darker side of Winehouse’s life. I also said that even though the movie presents the artist’s songs well, I would not claim to be an Amy Winehouse fan. I was not one before the movie. I am still not one after the movie. The same is true with Bob Dylan. I still appreciate his music, but I am pretty much in the same position as I was going into a “A Complete Unknown.” I am a Bob Dylan appreciator. Not a Bob Dylan fanatic. In regards to my appreciation, it is perhaps greater for him now than it was before, but still. I also think “A Complete Unknown” does a great job showing Dylan’s impact on the music industry by the time the movie’s over.
Is the film entirely accurate? No, it is not. If you know your Bob Dylan lore, you would know that he had a girlfriend in the 1960s by the name of Suze Rotolo. That is not the case in this film as Dylan himself requested her name would be changed. Therefore, we see Elle Fanning play a character by the name of Sylvie Rotolo (left). Regardless of accuracy, Fanning does a good job with the role. She has spot on chemistry with Chalamet’s Dylan. Speaking of chemistry, Chalamet also has quite a spark with another love interest in this film, Joan Baez, played by Monica Barbaro.
Overall, it is easy to say that the acting in “A Complete Unknown” is a standout element. This extends to more than just love interests. Edward Norton does a great job playing Pete Seeger. Dan Fogler plays one of my favorite characters in the film, Dylan’s manager, Albert Grossman. I thought of the entire cast, he was the one that delivered the most laughs. He had plenty of good material in the script to keep him busy. Boyd Holbrook oozes with charisma as Johnny Cash.
But of course, the real star of the show is Timothée Chalamet as Bob Dylan. Chalamet has been killing it for the past year or so. In 2023, he starred in “Wonka” as the title character. While I did not love the film, he does a phenomenal job with the role. I criticized “Wonka” for having unmemorable music sequences, but it does not mean Chalamet did not do his best with them. He has proven himself to be a solid singer, and therefore it is no surprise that Chalamet ends up lending his own voice to Dylan’s songs. Not only that, but Chalamet also plays the guitar in this film. I love Chalamet’s overall commitment to the role and he looks like he is having fun with it. If I had one thing to say though, there are some scenes where Chalamet has a bit of an accent to his character that feels kind of played up. It is a little over the top. Not quite over the top enough to sound like something out of “Saturday Night Live,” but at times it was a little distracting.
As an artist, I always appreciate when a movie has something to say about art itself. “A Complete Unknown” does this very well. Not only does the film highlight a portion of Bob Dylan’s career, which by the way, given how much Dylan has done over the years, I think it is wise of the filmmakers to just corner the story into just a small chunk of his life. It is worth noting within this small chunk of Dylan’s life we get to know a bit about his influence on the music industry and his rise to becoming an icon. With these elements in mind, this presents Dylan with a problem. While he is known for his music, deep down, he would like to be more than the identity in which society has given him. He wants to try new things and experiment. This film builds to a point where we see such a monumental shift come to fruition. Bob Dylan has built a reputation as a storytelling folk artist with a calming vibe. But we find out later on that he wants to implement electric instruments into his repertoire. The extended scene where we see this play out is easily my favorite part of the film. Not only is this sequence entertaining and presents significantly more stakes than we have seen throughout the story’s prior points, but we see Chalamet successfully channel his character’s happiness and indifference in regard to what others think of him.
This movie is more than just the rise of a popular musician, but it is also the story of an artist who just wants to make art. This is a consistency in every scene. Dylan sometimes tends to put his art before the people in his life, whether he knows them personally or they just so happen to be fans. It is his greatest passion in life. The movie shows the balance of making art to impress people intertwined with the complication of making art for yourself. It showcases the hurdle of shattering audience expectations. When you watch a movie, a shocking twist is sometimes warranted and can often be done well. But when is the shift too significant? That is a question this movie tries to answer and I think the overall response has resulted in an entertaining and exciting climax to a solid flick.
In the end, “A Complete Unknown” is not my favorite film of the year, but it has a series of strong moments and performances. Additionally, it has great production design, good direction by James Mangold, and a cozy vibe. I walked out of this awards contender feeling similar to how I did walking out of an Oscar-winning film I watched in 2023, specifically “The Holdovers.” “A Complete Unknown” is a movie that emits a sense of coziness. The movie practically puts you in a warm blanket. Again, this movie did not transition me into becoming a Bob Dylan fan. I am not going to go on YouTube just to listen to his music on a regular basis. But the musical sequences where we see Dylan’s folk songs come to life are most definitely comforting. If this movie is playing near you, give it a shot. I am going to give “A Complete Unknown” a 7/10.
“A Complete Unknown” is now playing in theaters everywhere. tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! And that is the last of the movies I saw in theaters in 2024! Coming soon, I will be talking about my top 10 best and worst movies of the year. Like the past couple years, I will be starting with the worst. Stay tuned! If you want to see these countdowns 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 Complete Unknown?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Bob Dylan as an artist? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A Real Pain” is written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg (Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, The Social Network) who also stars in the film as David. Alongside him is Kieran Culkin (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Succession) as his cousin, Benji. Also in the film are stars including Will Sharpe (The Electrical Life of Louis Wain, The White Lotus), Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Kurt Egyiawan (The Exorcist, Skyfall), Liza Sadovy (A Small Light, EastEnders), and Daniel Oreskes (Law & Order: Organized Crime, Only Murders in the Building). This film is about two cousins who take a trip to Poland to see various spots throughout the country, in addition to their late grandmother’s house.
I saw the teaser trailer for “A Real Pain” a few times in the theater, and it piqued my curiosity. I know there is a longer trailer out for the film, but for whatever reason I never got around to watching it before the film released. But the teaser had a brisk pace, gave promising chemistry between two leads, and some quickly delivered dialogue back and forth. It was by no means my most anticipated movie of the year, but it was one that if I got the chance to watch it, I would take it. Thankfully, a friend and I got to watch it over its opening weekend.
This movie has a 90 minute runtime, but it delivers a lot of material despite being a short watch. Again, I watched the teaser trailer, so I know it involved two people visiting land far from home, but I did not exactly know the movie’s true premise. Because I watched the teaser, which set the tone for the film, gave a glimpse of some of the scenes, some of the characters. But it left me with the impression that this was going to be a buddy travel flick between two people. Maybe even with a heist element considering the first shot of the teaser shows our main duo hopping train cars.
As for that last part, I was way off. “A Real Pain” is not a heist movie. I am not saying I am disappointed, it is just not what I expected. It is, however, as I correctly predicted, a buddy travel flick. And like some other movies involving long trips, it is between a couple people who have varying personalities, lifestyle situations, and habits.
You have the more accomplished David (Jesse Eisenberg) who has a wife, has a family, has a career, and lives in New York City. He is paired up with his cousin Benji (Kieran Culkin), who we come to realize has a way of easily charming strangers. But he also has a lot of quirks, some of which certain people would find annoying. I like the diversification of these two and both actors play off each other well.
I have no idea how most audiences are going to see Culkin’s character through their personal tastes. Whether they end up liking him, thinking he is too much, or if he is a nuisance. He can be a bit much. But there is no denying that he is raw. Yes, Benji may come off as a manchild who refuses to leave the nest, but there is more to his life than meets the eye. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it could be one worthy of some awards contention. It is easily the standout performance of the film and that says something because Eisenberg holds his own as David.
The film features the two leads on vacation in Poland, but I would not call their adventure an escape. The two cousins, who are Jewish by the way, are there to see various Holocaust-related sites along with the home of their late grandmother. For the record, I am not Jewish, but even as someone who is not Jewish, I have to imagine seeing certain places that these people end up visiting can elicit a number of negative emotions. To think about what these places stood for, what people did in said places, it shows the dark side of humanity and leaves one to wonder how we got to where we are now. Around the midway point of the film, our characters end up visiting a concentration camp used during the Holocaust. They get a tour of the site, including the inside of a gas chamber. When we get to this point of the film, there is no music, minimal sound, nothing more than occasional dialogue. I sometimes talk about immersion on Scene Before, but that word is typically used in relation to something spectacular or hyperactive like a big battle sequence or a race between cars. This movie immersed me through its minimalistic tendencies. The movie was literally as empty as I felt watching it. I almost did not know what to say or think other than, “Why?”
There are a couple movies that come to mind if I were to compare “A Real Pain” to something else. Specifically, “Jojo Rabbit” and “Life is Beautiful.” Not only do the films deal with the events of World War II and the Holocaust in some capacity, but both films, perhaps by the miracle of a god, manage to find humor in the darkest of situations. All of the humor feels natural. You could even argue it is cathartic. It is an escape from the harsh reality people had to deal with. Sort of in the same way some see music or books. Heck, I sort of view movies in the same light. It is an escape from reality. This movie, like many others, let me leave my world for a little more than an hour. But it simultaneously does a great job at showcasing the wrongs of someone else’s.
Keeping the title of this movie in mind, “A Real Pain,” that is something this movie highlights in a variety of ways. Some people deal with pain by crying, others reflect, others pray. As far as Benji goes, he is a complicated individual who tends to hide whatever pain he is holding back for a period of time until he suddenly breaks. We see David kind of go down a similar path, but he seems to do a better job at keeping his emotions in check. We sometimes find out the effects the cousins come to discover as a result of their grandmother’s death. “A Real Pain” is a film that deals with the universal concept of grief. It also deals with the complication of life after a great suffering. There is a moment during the train ride where Benji questions whether it is right for him and others onboard to be sitting inside a high quality vehicle in first class. He questions whether something like this is justified after many people several decades ago dealt with one of the worst events in all of history. I cannot pretend “A Real Pain” is perfect. I think some people will end up finding Benji to be a little hard to handle at times, and there are a couple scenes that despite his character feeling real, I thought he was written to be a tad over the top. But “A Real Pain” delivers on a lot of things a great story can do. It makes you laugh. It makes you cry. It makes you sympathize with different characters. This is not my favorite film of the year, but I will not deny it nails a lot of things on the head.
In the end, “A Real Pain” is a real deal. With the help of a great cast and a singular vision from Jesse Eisenberg, the film manages to find light in darkness. I cannot recommend the film to everyone, but even if you are an easy person to make cry during movies, I think there will be a fair amount of joy and laughs to balance that out. I have no idea what Jesse Eisenberg has up his sleeve next behind the camera, but if it is as good as this, I will be happy. I am going to give “A Real Pain” an 8/10.
“A Real Pain” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” If you want to see 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 Real Pain?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you think perfectly balances light and darkness? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Venom: The Last Dance” is directed by Kelly Marcel and this is her directorial debut. This film stars Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Mad Max: Fury Road), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Juno Temple (Fargo, Ted Lasso), Rhys Ifans (The Amazing Spider-Man, The King’s Man), Stephen Graham (Gangs of New York, Snatch), Peggy Lu (Always be My Maybe, Kung Pow: Enter the Fist), Clark Backo (The Changeling, Letterkenny), Alanna Ubach (Meet the Fockers, Legally Blonde), and Andy Serkis (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther). This film is the third installment in the “Venom” franchise and centers around the titular host and his human bud Eddie Brock as the they are on the run for the sake of survival and for the latter to clear his name.
If you are new to Scene Before, you would know I love comic book movies. I think the sub-genre has consistently entertained me for years, and in some cases, given me some of my favorite movies of all time like “The Suicide Squad” or “Avengers: Infinity War.” Those two movies are from different cinematic universes, specifically the Detective Comics Extended Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while the “Venom” movies are also based on Marvel characters, they are not a part of the mainline MCU. Well, sort of. That is unless you count that one scene in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” But as far as the “Venom” movies go, they are under Sony’s Spider-Man Universe, which interestingly, barely has Spider-Man in it. This cinematic universe has been responsible for turds in the wind like “Morbius” and “Madame Web.” If I were to make a worst films of the 2020s list right now, I guarantee you both of those will end up in the top 5. But for some reason, the one successful property in this universe is “Venom,” which I find kind of sad. Not just because it is massively outperforming its partner films, leaving them in the dust. But because if you want me to be honest with you, I do not find these films to be that great. Sure, I liked the second “Venom” movie. I will admit “Let There be Carnage” has its moments. That film delivers some okay action, has a lot of laughs, and the pacing is tightly knit. But the first “Venom?” I could never watch that movie again. I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them.
As far as “Venom: The Last Dance” goes, I do not find the film to be the worst of the trilogy. But that does not mean the movie is good. The film starts off okay. One highlight in particular involves Venom and Eddie fighting a bunch of dudes in a warehouse. That part was entertaining and I really enjoyed some of the gore delivered in that sequence. I thought another highlight was seeing Venom and Eddie hang on the side of a plane thousands of feet in the air. But there is not really anything else worth writing home about. For the most part, the movie is slow. Considering the tight pace of the previous installment, slow is probably the last word I would want to use when describing “Venom: The Last Dance,” but here we are. As for the villain in this film, I honestly almost did not care at all. So I guess you could say that the Sony Spider-Man Universe seems to be taking some inspiration from the much more successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, but maybe not in the way one would want them to.
Even though I think this whole trilogy has been a loss, I think the one win throughout all three films, if you can call it, is the bond between Eddie and Venom. We see Tom Hardy doing an okay job as both characters. And Venom in particular has always been funny. As much as I hated the first movie in this trilogy, I still laugh thinking about the one scene where Venom calls Eddie a “p****” for not jumping from a building and instead taking an elevator to leave. The two continue to have decent chemistry in this third installment. Unfortunately I do not think they are as funny as they were before. But I think when it comes to the duo’s aspirations in this film, that part was nice to see. We find out that Venom wants to go see the Statue of Liberty, and seeing that motivation play out was kind of wholesome. Granted, we find out at the beginning of the film that is not the only reason these two are going to New York, but it is nice to know that this alien character has these humanistic desires. You can tell that these two have grown to care about each other. I just wish the screenplay was more compelling. It lacks an oomph. It lacks a direction. It lacks a substance that makes the film exciting.
Remember Mrs. Chen from the previous movies? Well guess what? She is back! I will admit, when I saw the trailers for this film and I watched her character in context of what was given to me through said trailers, I was curious about what she would do in this film. Honestly though, she does not add much to the plot, the progression of the story, anything. She is literally just there for the sake of being there. Although this time instead of seeing her behind the counter of a convenience store, she makes a trip out to Las Vegas to party it up. She has a penthouse suite, she’s dressed like a queen, the whole nine yards. While I admittedly found Peggy Lu to give a somewhat memorable performance in the film, you could almost take her out and have the outcome of the film barely change at all. Her appearance in this film barely serves the story, and ultimately comes off as a distraction if anything. What happens in Vegas should certainly stay out of “Venom: The Last Dance.”
In my review for “Venom: Let There be Carnage,” I mentioned I had one notable moment that could be described as a guilty pleasure from that movie. Particularly the moment where Eddie and Venom are arguing and the whole thing results in this hilarious fiasco where Venom throws out Eddie’s TV. This leads to another scene some time later where we see a brand new Sony television that was clearly intended to be there for product placement purposes. After all, these movies are from Sony, so they have to show off their products somehow. This trend appears to continue in “Venom: The Last Dance,” but the product placement is likely not as obvious as the last time. For those who do not know, Sony owns “Wheel of Fortune.” When Eddie gets to a casino in Las Vegas, he walks to a Wheel of Fortune slot machine, a common staple at these places, and sits down. The scene at said slot machine is rather short, but sweet. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It is a somewhat accurate representation of the thrill, and agony of gambling. You see Eddie mashing the button like he’s learning how to play “Mortal Kombat,” Venom is getting a sudden sensation he has never experienced before, he goes on saying this is the greatest feeling he’s ever had. But it does not take long for them to hit a low, particularly running out of money. Venom prompts Eddie to smash the machine in rage. The scene delivers some laughs, and as someone who has enjoyed his time at the slot machine, and occasionally questioned myself for sitting down at one in the first place, this is a good representation of what it is like to gamble sometimes.
By the way, if the hooligans at Foxwoods Resort in Connecticut are reading this, give me my freaking money back that you guys snatched from me in September, NOW.
That said, one minor detail, they likely customized the “Wheel of Fortune” slot machine for this movie, because I cannot recall one time I have played those machines, or any others for that matter, and saw an enormous “YOU LOSE” graphic on those machines. I know gambling can be cruel, but they’re not exactly arcade games. The game is never over on slot machines, it just stops at a point until someone keeps it going.
Speaking of minor details, one of my biggest laughs in the movie is the likely the result of me spending way too much time looking into details on passenger airplanes. Yes, like some other people, I have had growing worries about flying certain Boeing aircrafts. But even before planes like the 737 MAX became a hot topic of concern, I knew about some models thanks to YouTube. There is a moment in “Venom: The Last Dance” where Eddie explains to Venom that the two latched off the exterior of a Boeing 757. It takes a bit for Venom to chime in about this, but at one point he shouts, “It was an Airbus A320!” I am by no means an air geek or planespotter, but I do have an appreciation for air travel. I think the whole process behind it and the way it is managed is sometimes a scam, but either way, that particular line made me lose it when Venom said it. Plus the fact that Venom shouted it with such certainty made the execution of the line come off as admirable as possible.
But the more I think about this “Venom” trilogy, the more I think these movies are the kinds that Martin Scorsese would look at and go, “Hard pass.” And you know what? Now that I have sat through all three of these monstrosities, I would be right there with him. To use Scorsese’s words, and I may sound like a hypocrite because this goes against what I said about the pacing earlier, “Venom: The Last Dance” undoubtedly has the pace of a theme park ride. You may be wondering if I am high right now. Just moments ago I said this movie was slow. What kind of theme park ride are we talking about? Well, if we were to talk about faster theme park rides like a roller coaster, such a pace is most evident when we are with Eddie and Venom. Whenever their presence is absent, “Venom: The Last Dance” becomes a complete and total snoozefest. The main duo’s connection kind of saves the movie in the same way it has done so in the franchise’s predecessors. Everything involving Area 51 was boring. Some of the characters in those scenes were not as compelling as maybe they could have been. They felt flat. They felt wooden. If anything, these movies somewhat remind me of the reality TV genre. This is not a comparison to every show within the genre, but if you watch certain reality shows you will notice how hyped up the main cast tends to get sometimes. When I think of this Venom trilogy, I think of the titular character’s voice. I think about how loud that voice can get in select scenes to the point where it drowns out all the other characters. Granted, sometimes it is appealing, but it does not change the fact that this movie feels like noise for the sake of noise.
Also, with this being the third installment of a trilogy, the film tries to go out on a note of finality. Or as Hollywood puts it, “The end… Until we make a billion dollars.” Unfortunately, the note of finality this movie tends to provide feels tacked on. Never once did I get any emotion between these two characters. Part of it is because this property is far from the gold standard of comic book movies, therefore I never had any attachment to these films to begin with. While I thought the second film is good, I think the first one is ridiculous garbage, and at the time, the worst “Spider-Man”-related film I had seen. Then came “Morbius,” then came “Madame Web…” Oh my god. This goddamn timeline. Sony, get your act together! Because I have had it! Either get people who care about these characters, or give the rights to somebody else! I could tell Tom Hardy is probably having a blast making these movies, but I cannot say I am having the best time watching them. They are barely good enough to be eye candy. And it is not even good eye candy. It is like eye candy that is a bit past its expiration date! It can still be edible, but is it really? It is honestly not that good. When I look at Venom in this movie and the many symbiotic creatures we end up seeing, it reminds me of the “Star Wars” prequels in a sense because if you remember those movies in comparison to the original trilogy, you would notice a significantly higher presence of lightsabers, and therefore lightsaber fights. When you look at the original trilogy, lightsabers felt special and were always used to serve the story. In the prequels, the lightsaber use sometimes comes off as an excuse to put said objects on the screen like they are jangling keys. Do not get me wrong, sometimes I was hypnotized by those jangling keys, but still.
My point is, when I look at all the symbiotic creatures, it makes the character of Venom feel less like a one of a kind, and perhaps as commonplace as a Dunkin’ location in New England. Venom does not feel special in this movie. Granted, in the previous films, he faced off against other symbiotic beings, but the count of symbiotic beings in those movies were minimal. There was still a novelty to the concept. You could almost argue that there are some story purposes to the number of creatures in this film, considering this film is set in Area 51. This “Venom” film is definitely going bigger than the previous two installments. Though in contrary to the common saying, bigger does not mean better. In this case, the movie is so big that it leaves me wondering how many of these creatures are in the movie for the sole purpose of selling toys. In fact, there are a couple times in this movie where I was looking at numerous characters or shifts the symbiote itself makes and in my head I’m going, “There’s a toy.” “There’s another toy.” “There’s a toy.” “There’s a Hot Toy.” “There’s an action figure.” “There’s a Funko Pop.” When the trailers showed off the Venomized horse, I was intrigued by how delightfully weird such a concept could be. And when that was shown in the movie, I thought it was fun to watch on screen. But for the most part, I kept looking at the symbiotic creatures and thought the whole idea was overdone by the climax of the film. Now I may sound like a hypocrite, because looking back at say the MCU’s “Iron Man 3,” I was thrilled when the climax went down and all the Iron Man suits showed up. But that was on top of an already engaging film containing characters I cared about and a story that moved along at a decent pace. The finale for “Iron Man 3” was the cherry on top of a sundae whereas the finale for “Venom: The Last Dance” felt like a bunch of creatures I did not care about facing off a threat I did not care about.
Could I watch “Venom: The Last Dance” if I were drunk? That is a question I personally find to be a bit tough to answer, mainly because I do not drink. Maybe this is why I hate these movies. Because I refuse the booze. But in all seriousness, as I look at “Venom: The Last Dance,” this is a movie that would probably be best watched in a setting that includes alcohol. Heck, part of the movie takes place in Vegas! Now you get to watch a movie about a guy and his alien pal going to a place where poor decisions are highly encouraged while also making some poor decisions right from your own couch. Although if you ask me, watching “Venom: The Last Dance” is already enough of poor decision.
In the end, “Venom: The Last Dance” is one of the worst films of the year. The film starts off average and just gets worse as it goes. This is just the latest comic book movie to come out in 2024 that I found to be a waste of time. If it were not for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” every comic book movie that came out this year would have been a dud. Now, it is hard to top the injustice that is “Madame Web,” and thankfully, “Venom: The Last Dance” is an improvement from that schlock. Is “Venom: The Last Dance” as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux?” Surprisingly, no. These are words I did not think I would be saying months ago! For one thing, despite there being more cons than pros in “Venom: The Last Dance,” it does have some entertainment value. There are some funny lines here and there. There are one or two decent action sequences. But it is not enough to make a good movie. The palette of the film is somewhat depressing. The moments that try to trigger your emotions did not get to me. I did not care for a lot of the supporting characters. And to my surprise, the film sometimes moves at a snail’s pace.
I genuinely hope, against all odds, that come December, “Kraven the Hunter” is a good movie. Because I have no faith in it at this point. And why should I have any faith in it? Literally the only film in this Sony Spider-Man Universe that has worked for me so far is “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” The first “Venom” was terrible. “Morbius” sucked. “Madame Web” is one of the worst films I have ever seen. For those of you who have comic book movie fatigue, I cannot relate. We clearly live in different worlds. Again, unpopular opinion I guess, I liked every MCU film since “Endgame.” If the MCU did not exist, and Sony’s stinkers were all that were coming out, there is a chance I could be asking for more quality products, or maybe I would be fatigued. This is supposedly the end of Eddie and Venom’s journey together, but there are future plans for the ongoing Sony Spider-Man Universe. As much as I am peeved at Sony for the state of said universe, I do not envy their position right now. Their most successful property is concluding, and now they supposedly have the comic book movie equivalent of the Island of Misfit Toys to play with. Honestly, if “Kraven the Hunter” is a complete bust, I would not be shocked if Tom Holland never stops playing “Spider-Man.” You think Disney is going to make Hugh Jackman play Wolverine until he’s 90? Ha! Fat chance! Watch what Sony is going to make Tom Holland do with “Spider-Man” if their other projects continue to fail.
I mean… At least there is “Spider-Verse.” That seems to be kicking butt right now.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is the first film directed by Kelly Marcel, and should she continue to direct movies, I hope they are more successful than this. I wish her nothing but the best. But unfortunately, when it comes to comic book movies, “Venom: The Last Dance” is far from the best. I am going to give “Venom: The Last Dance” a 4/10.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” Also coming soon, the next installment in my Election Days review series, I will be reviewing “On the Basis of Sex,” which is about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Venom: The Last Dance?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Venom” movie? For me, the answer is easily “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” But what about you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Kinds of Kindness” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (The Lobster, Poor Things) and stars Emma Stone (The Amazing Spider-Man, Poor Things), Jesse Plemons (Civil War, Game Night), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, Platoon), Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Drive-Away Dolls), Hong Chau (The Menu, Downsizing), Joe Alwyn (Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, Catherine Called Birdy), Mamoudou Athie (Jurassic World: Dominion, Elemental), and Hunter Schafer (The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Euphoria). This film contains three separate stories starring the same cast that all share loose connections.
“Kinds of Kindness” is one of those movies that is going to get several butts in seats. Well, maybe not everyone’s butt. That said, if you are of a certain audience, chances are this movie got your attention. After all, some of the people who are connected to this film have are hot off the recent award circuit. “Poor Things” dominated several bodies last year, earning a few Oscar wins, including Emma Stone’s beyond deserved accolade for Best Actress. It was also nominated for a multitude of Critics Choice Awards, BAFTAs, Golden Globes, and even a couple SAGs. When they dropped the trailer for this movie earlier this year, and I saw the names “Emma Stone” and “Yorgos Lanthimos” attached, my first thoughts were “Wow! That was fast! I did not think they’d crank out another movie that quickly!” And given how recently “Poor Things” won me over, I was excited to see what this dynamic duo could do with a film like this. But there was something missing from the marketing… I did not really know what the movie is about.
Now, for those who did not see this movie, I am going to try my best to not give a ton of info away, but this film is three stories all done by the same cast. They all somewhat relate in tone and theme, but they also have their differences. This was something I knew going in, but I found out from someone else who saw the movie. I did not get this from any marketing, any trailers, nothing. And as much as I do not want to spoil the whole movie, I think there are some people who would at least like to know what to expect going in…
Now I was able to remember this information going into the theater, but as for the movie itself, it is not as memorable. In fact, some of the parts I do remember, failed to win me over.
I want to be real with you… “Kinds of Kindness” is one of the worst film experiences I had in the past several years. To be clear, I do not think it is even close to being the worst movie of said years. Granted it is not exactly good… But during my screening, my projector had multiple instances of technical difficulties. So much so that the theater had to issue passes for a free screening. But not only did I have a bad experience by watching a movie that I did not enjoy for the material that the filmmakers made, but it was sullied even more by outside factors. I cannot even tell you precisely how this movie, and by that I mean the third movie within the movie, ends. Sure, I saw how it ended. But this film was so slow, so uninteresting, and yet, out of nowhere, my theatrical experience reached a lowest low to make an unmemorable ending even worse.
I just want to remind you all, this movie and its three stories star recent Oscar winner Emma Stone. Her efforts in this movie are not quite to the level of a Razzies nominee. Not even close. In fact, I would say everyone in this film is rather competent, but there is a reason why this film is releasing in the middle of the year as opposed to the end of the year. It feels really weird to say this because I have a couple Yorgos Lanthimos films under my belt, and every other one I have seen, I feel like he is getting the best performances out of each one of his actors. While the actors in this film do a good job, none of the performances this time around feel Oscar-worthy. At best, they meet some gap between an okay performance in a big budget summer blockbuster and an arthouse performance that would be considered for a nominee but is missing some sort of spark.
Admittedly, some of the stories from a conceptual perspective, are intriguing. I like the ideas for all three of these stories, but by the time they get to the end of each story, it falters at some point. Not only are they similarly titled by having “R.M.F.” in each name, but they do feel somewhat similar to each other when it comes to the execution. Each one delivers a somewhat sinister vibe and features some sequences where part of me wants to look away because they are not always easy to watch. Interestingly enough, “Kinds of Kindness” just so happens to be paced in such a way that makes it not always easy to watch. Talk about a slogfest. What can be worse than one bad movie? Ha! I know! Three bad movies in one bad movie! It’s bad movie-ception!
I admire each short story for having some daring scenes and moments, and they did catch my attention, but that is one of the only compliments I can truly give this film. It pushes some boundaries and those scenes stood out to me. There are also some scenes that turned me off, perhaps to a degree where I almost wanted to stop watching the movie altogether, so this movie has a balance of its positive and negative moments.
The way that these mini-stories are structured, the way they are written, the way they are brought to life, they should to some degree be able to stick with me after leaving the theater. But in all honesty, they were not able to do that. If anything, these stories were amusing to watch. I think there are a couple scenes that are very well directed and realized, but it does not make up for all the other moments that made me roll my eyes. Is this film incompetently made? No. It is just one that did not work for me. For all I know, this could win some people over, but I am not one of those people. This is the kind of movie that was going for a reaction, and I was definitely able to give one during some scenes. But I wish said reaction was slightly different sometimes. Honestly, if you were to ask me to recommend a Yorgos Lanthimos movie to watch, I will just recommend the film he did prior to this one, “Poor Things.” It’s fun, it is comedic, and a wacky vision brought to life. And unlike this recent outing, “Poor Things” left me thinking a bit more after leaving the cinema. The only thought on my mind after leaving “Kinds of Kindness” is that I never want to watch the movie again.
In the end, while I did enjoy “Kinds of Kindness” a bit more than “The Favourite,” it was a rather off and on experience for me where some of the turnoffs tended to stand out. Honestly, if you are looking for a recent movie from a filmmaker with an auteurist approach containing a few decent short stories, I think Wes Anderson’s “The French Dispatch” is a slightly better watch. Granted it is not a perfect movie either. It is far from Wes Anderson’s best work, but it definitely has its moments. “Kinds of Kindness” likely has an audience. It had some laughs, it has good production design, and respectable direction. But it does not have the oomph for me to call the movie great, and the experience is only worsened by several moments that left me questioning why I was watching them or why they were even put in the film in the first place. I am going to give “Kinds of Kindness” a 5/10.
“Kinds of Kindness” is now playing in select theaters and as of writing this post in 2024, the film will available on Hulu Friday, August 30th.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” “Borderlands,” “Skincare,” and “My Old Ass.” 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 “Kinds of Kindness?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie that grossed you out so much that you cannot appreciate it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Poor Things” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite, The Lobster) and stars Emma Stone (The Favourite, The Amazing Spider-Man), Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight, The Avengers), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Ramy Youssef (Ramy, Mr. Robot), Christopher Abbott (Sanctuary, Girls), and Jerrod Carmichael (The Carmichael Show, Lucas Bros Moving Co.). This film is based on a book by Alasdair Gray and it is about Bella Baxter, a woman whose body just so happens to be revived as a result of a scientific experiment conducted by the eccentric Dr. Godwin Baxter.
I cannot explain this film’s concept justice. It is not that I do not know what it is about. But even before going to see it, I knew certain things about it that would have made for awkward conversation or have ruined the somewhat vague nature of the film’s marketing. On the surface, the film seems to give enough away. Basically, a woman who happens to be brought to life through science experiences her definition of what it means to live. I think that is a great way to describe this movie without being too detailed, or in some cases, overly graphic. The concept is interesting to say the least. But as far as I am concerned, it was being helmed by someone who I did not completely trust.
One of my least favorite films of 2018 was “The Favourite.” Of that year’s slate of Academy Award Best Picture nominees, that movie was by far the one I considered to be the worst. That film was directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. Other than the fact that I found the film to be a uniquely boring waste of time, it gave me a bad impression of the director to the point where I neglected visiting some of his earlier films. I have heard decent things about “The Lobster” and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer.” But I refused to watch those because I was so turned off by “The Favourite.” As I have said previously on Scene Before, first impressions matter. But I watched the trailer for “Poor Things” and found myself hypnotized, but also with a sense of hesitancy in the back of my mind. But I thought “Poor Things” was worth checking out because much like “The Favourite” five years ago, “Poor Things” has been receiving tons of positive word of mouth. Plus, if Emma Stone continues to trust Lanthimos, maybe I should too.
So, how was the movie? I am very pleased to say that this is a banger of a film. It is not in my top 10 of the year, but it is excellent. I am immensely pleased and surprised by how this film turned out. It is wacky, it is weird, it is a feast for the eyes and ears. Yorgos Lanthimos undoubtedly has a unique style to his filmmaking. But in some ways, this kind of reminded me of a Wes Anderson film. Its color palette is particularly striking, the production design is a perfect blend between reality and fantasy, and the dialogue is almost like an enhancement on everyday life. I might not come across people talking the way these characters do sometimes, but I assure you it makes complete sense within the context of the movie and its universe.
One of the reasons why this film failed to reach the mark of being in my top 10 films of the year is because it starts kind of rough. It takes a bit for the movie to get going, despite inklings of intrigue. There are a couple of moments that I found to be an eyesore. In a movie full of eye candy, there are moments where I found something in the frame quite disgusting to the point where I could not help but wince or look away. It is a bit of a balancing act, really.
Part of the movie is in black and white, and then there is a portion of it that is in color. There were some mixed bags when it came to the black and white scenes. Once we get to the color scenes, that is when the movie unleashes its best material. It is creative, insane, and even with its strange tendencies, everything makes sense. I found every single thing in this film convincing. That said, there are times where the pacing is a tad uneven. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but it is noticeable.
The ensemble of the film is honestly a contender for the best of 2023. To me, it is up there with “Barbie,” “Oppenheimer,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” and “The Holdovers” in terms of being a fine mix between star power, acting ability, and instant charm from everyone involved. Mark Ruffalo has a number of shining scenes that could potentially warrant some extended talk this awards season. Willem Dafoe, per usual, gives everything his all here. During the latter half of the film, I was heavily entranced by Kathryn Hunter as Swiney. The entire cast in this movie is great, but the star of the show, literally and figuratively, is none other than Emma Stone.
Talk about a marvelous triumph of a performance! Emma Stone nails Bella Baxter throughout this entire film. I looked back at Emma Stone’s IMDb and was reminded of some of her career highlights. Of course as a comic book movie enthusiast, I know she played Gwen Stacy in “The Amazing Spider-Man” and its sequel. She did a good job in those films despite them not being up to snuff. She also did one of the better coming of age films of the 2010s, “Easy A,” where she was funny and charming. I liked her in the “Zombieland” movies. Of course she was great in “La La Land.” I even liked her in “The Favourite” despite my negative thoughts on the movie. Given time to marinate, I have to say Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” trumps all of her past work that I have seen. I honestly cannot think of a performance of hers I liked more. “La La Land” comes close, but Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” is comparatively transformative, it is otherworldly. It something that I could have never imagined seeing in my entire life, especially from someone like her. I am not saying Stone is not a talented actress. There is a reason why she has an Oscar on her mantle. But this is a performance that takes what I know about Emma Stone as a person, as an actress, as someone who has seen her in certain movies, and completely subverts my expectations. As I watch this movie, I of course know it is Emma Stone in front of the camera. Her face has become rather recognizable over the years. In fact, even though I have not seen the movie, Stone may come off as less recognizable in Disney’s “Cruella” based on what I have witnessed through images and marketing. But as I watch this movie, despite the low difficulty of realizing the talent in front of the camera happens to be Stone physically, it is a bit harder to conclude that it is her mentally.
Part of what makes her performance so riveting and exciting is how her character easily blends in to the world around her. The script is written in such a way that I would not call it fantasy, but it certainly is not a part of our reality either. The film, kind of like “Everything Everywhere All at Once” meshes so many genres and ideas together to the point where it practically forms a genre of its own. Bella Baxter is one of the most unique characters I have seen all year, and she comes from an equally one of a kind piece of art. And that is what this movie is. Art. I was transfixed by this in the same way some may be transfixed by the Mona Lisa. Again, this is not to say “Poor Things” is one of the year’s best movies, but it is certainly one of the boldest and brightest.
While Bella Baxter might not be my favorite character in a movie I have seen this year, I need some time to think on that front. Baxter is nevertheless in contention to be, idealistically, the most fascinating protagonist created for the screen this year. She has a sympathetic personality, but she also has the mind of a young child and a teenager all wrapped into one person. With those last two ideas, we see a bit of a transition between them, but they are still interlinked somehow as the movie goes. The film is an entertaining study on what happens if you put someone as eccentric as Bella Baxter into our society, or some variant of it. What would she do? How would she behave? This is basically a fish out of water story. And while the fish out of water idea has been done time and time again, I imagine stories like this one happen to factor into why the idea continues to be unleashed in several projects. It is a tried and true method of storytelling that may be familiar, but if you could your own spin on it, it may be worth seeking out. And speaking of things that are worth seeking out, if you have time on your hands and you have not seen “Poor Things” yet, make an effort to see it at some point. Not only is it a great movie, it is one of the most welcome, monumental surprises of 2023. I know a lot of people were looking forward to this film. I was not one of them. If anything, I almost rolled my eyes knowing it exists. But with one AMC A-List punch later, I can say this is one of the better movies of the year.
In the end, “Poor Things” is a great turnaround for Yorgos Lanthimos. This movie took me from resisting his past work to making me want to see more of it. Emma Stone is better than she has ever been. If she is not nominated for an Oscar this season my jaw will be on the floor. I do not know of any actress I could see beating her this year. This is a once in a lifetime performance as far as she is concerned. The film is very funny. There are a lot of stellar lines from various characters. Bella Baxter’s mannerisms and quirks are wonderfully distinguished and brilliantly written throughout the picture. The movie does a good job at splicing all sorts of ideas at the wall and having most of them stick. The pathos was off and on. I do not think I am going to remember “Poor Things” through much of an emotional connection, but again, the comedy worked quite a bit so that makes up for it. The sets are detailed and colorful. I could not take my eyes off of some pieces. And if it were not for some occasional roughness in the first act, this film would probably make my top 10 of the year. You never know though, I could change my mind. I just saw the film. That said, as far as I am concerned, I am glad I saw it. If Lanthimos and Stone reunite in the future, I cannot wait to see what these two do next. I am going to give “Poor Things” an 8/10.
“Poor Things” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, why not check out some of my other ones? Just recently I did reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” “Migration,” and “Wonka.” Check those out when you have a chance! Also, I will soon be reviewing the new romcom “Anyone But You.” That will be up later this week. Also coming soon, I will be announcing my top 10 best and worst movies of 2023. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Poor Things?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Yorgos Lanthimos movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Next Goal Wins” is directed by Taika Waititi (Thor: Ragnarok, Jojo Rabbit) who also appears in the film as the character “American Samoa Priest.” The film also stars Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs, X-Men: First Class), Oscar Kightley (Sione’s Wedding, Hunt for the Wilderpeople), Kaimana, David Fane (Sione’s Wedding, Love Birds), Rachel House (Moana, Soul), Beulah Koale (Hawaii-Five-0, Dual), Will Arnett (The LEGO Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), and Elisabeth Moss (The Invisible Man, Mad Men). Based on the 2014 documentary of the same name, this film is about what happens when an arrogant coach and one of the world’s worst soccer teams come together with the hopes of making the latter do something they are not necessarily known for doing. Scoring goals and winning.
Taika Waititi is one of those Hollywood personalities that I can respect, but I think he also has his moments of taking said personality too far. I think he has a knack for humor at times, even if I think his “Thor” movies are inferior to Kenneth Branagh’s 2011 MCU installment. In recent years, I thought “Jojo Rabbit” has proven he is both a great storyteller and just about as good of an actor. His portrayal of Adolf Hitler in that film was one of the best of the year. In 2021, one of my favorite films of the year, “Free Guy,” starred Waititi as Antwan, the greedy executive who serves as the film’s antagonist. No disrespect to Ryan Reynolds, there is an argument to make that Waititi stole every scene he was in. He had this swagger to him that I was not expecting out of a character of this nature. I cannot imagine anyone else playing the character. That’s how good Waititi was in the film.
His latest film prior to this one, “Thor: Love and Thunder” got a thumbs up from me, but perhaps just barely. I think the film did an alright job mixing comedy and drama together, but the comedy sometimes becomes too silly to the point where it almost tarnishes the more dramatic elements. I was also not a fan of when Waititi publicly and perhaps mockingly called out his distaste for how the VFX turned out. I am all for recognizing your own faults, but when you are trying to sell a movie, I don’t think mocking a great span of the people who made it is the best move. It would be like if I were a delivering a Domino’s pizza, handing it off to the customers, and leaving them off by saying I worked for Papa John’s and I think the people over there usually put more care into their pies. That’s why I went into “Next Goal Wins” with lukewarm expectations. How did the movie turn out? Well, I’ve seen worse this year. But the way I saw this movie is the way most of my country sees soccer. A snoozefest that makes me wish I were watching something else.
I appreciate the concept of “Next Goal Wins” because it is not just an underdog story, it is one that celebrates failure in a such in an embracing manner. It reminds me a bit of “The Disaster Artist,” one of my favorite A24 movies that goes into the making of “The Room.” Similarly, there was another sports film I saw last year called “The Phantom of the Open,” where an unlikely man participates in professional golf, much to the dismay of those involved with the sport. “Next Goal Wins” recognizes the lowest points of both its protagonist coach and the team he has to reluctantly oversee. Unfortunately, when the reluctant coach is put together with the below par group of athletes, the on-screen chemistry is iffy at best. There are certain matches between the coach and the team. Not to mention, there happen to be certain relationships throughout the film that are well developed, but the movie spends most of its time devoted to one tired comedy gag after another. The film may call itself a comedy, but it is subjective as anything deemed artistic. I failed to find it funny. Sure, maybe I had a couple laughs here and there during the film. But I would not be able to tell you what it that got me to laugh. Overall, I found a good portion of the film forgettable and that is not a word I was expecting to use out of a picture like this. If you know me in real life, perhaps one of my weaknesses, though I personally call it a strength, is my resistance to take some things seriously. Everything is a joke to me. That is almost the mentality that Waititi takes to heart throughout “Next Goal Wins,” and it only hurts the final product. Between “Thor: Love and Thunder” and now “Next Goal Wins,” Taika Waititi is practically overdoing his comedic efforts to the point where they feel in your face, and therefore unfunny.
This film is not going to win any Oscars. Does it look competent? Perhaps. Is the acting okay? Sure. Does the story make sense? Yes. But the movie is bombarded with negatives to the point where those stand out a lot more than the positives. It does get better as it goes along, because I started off this movie not liking anyone. I thought the coach was not a great center of the story as it started. I found the characters on team uninteresting. It was not an easy task latching onto this film’s ensemble. Michael Fassbender does an okay, albeit far from awards-worthy job with the material given to him, but it is not enough. If I had to guess, it ultimately comes down to direction, because almost every choice in the film comes off either as some semblance of a joke. “Next Goal Wins” is basically what happens when a joke is taken too far. Although in this case, the joke is never offensive, it just lingers much longer than it should to the point where it leaves a bad aftertaste.
I will give credit where it is due because despite the somewhat predictable structure of the film, there are some unexpected and unique creative choices brought to fruition in the film whether it is through writing, editing, or narration. I cannot say I was a fan of all these choices, but despite finding the movie dull, these choices kept some banality out of the final product. And that is kind of what this movie is in multiple ways. A series of halfway marks. I found the story boring, but great in concept. I found the characters to have personalities, but they just didn’t leap off the screen for me. I found the movie to be heartfelt, but it is sullied by bad humor.
But I must add, one of those creative choices becomes a driving force in the climax, and it honestly took whatever fun I was having in the movie, if any, and lessened it to such an unbelievable degree. It resulted in a conclusion that was not as satisfying as it could have been. When it comes to this vision, Taika Waititi is like a class clown, but in this case as I watch him, I am the teacher telling him to stop joking around and focus on his studies. “Next Goal Wins” is far from this year’s worst picture, but it is easily one of the most forgettable.
In the end, “Next Goal Wins,” much like the American Samoa national football team, fails to score any goals. It is not a travesty that will go down in history as one of the most awful pieces of crap Hollywood has ever produced, but I do not know if I will be thinking about this movie in about five years from now. I have not seen all of Taika Waititi’s work, but I think after watching this film, I cannot say I am looking forward to whatever feature film he does next as much as I previously expected. Hopefully he turns things around. I am going to give “Next Goal Wins” a 4/10.
Come to think of it, “Next Goal Wins” might not even the worst sports movie I have seen this year, because “80 for Brady” exists. So congratulations, Taika Waititi! Tom Brady and four elderly women just saved your butt! And yes, if you read that review, you’ll notice the score for “80 for Brady” is higher than what this film got. I wonder if I was too generous on that review. But at the end of the day, they’re just numbers. What can I say?
“Next Goal Wins” is now playing in theaters. Granted, none of them are near me at this point. But if you live in a certain market, it could be playing near you. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new Alexander Payne-directed film, “The Holdovers!” I have been looking forward to this movie for quite some time, and having seen it, I cannot wait to share my thoughts with you all. Also coming soon, I will have my thoughts on “Napoleon,” “Godzilla Minus One,” “Ferrari,” “The Boy and the Heron,” and “Dream Scenario.” 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 “Next Goal Wins?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Taika Waititi movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A Haunting in Venice” is directed by Kenneth Branagh (Belfast, Hamlet), who also stars in the film as Hercule Poirot. Also joining him in the cast are actors including Kyle Allen (West Side Story, The Path), Camille Cottin (Stillwater, House of Gucci), Jamie Dornan (Fifty Shades of Grey, Belfast), Tina Fey (Saturday Night Live, 30 Rock), Jude Hill (Belfast, Magpie Murders), Ali Khan (Red Rose, Everyone Else Burns), Emma Laird (The Crowded Room, Mayor of Kingstown), Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Yellowstone), Riccardo Scamarcio (John Wick: Chapter 2, The Woman in White), and Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings). This film is the third installment in Kenneth Branagh’s ongoing series of Agatha Christie novel adaptations. In this movie, Poirot is retired, but reluctantly attends a seance, an event where people attempt to make contact with the dead. Interestingly, that is how one person at the event ends up. Therefore, it is up to Poirot to figure out the mystery behind said person’s death.
Given how this is Branagh’s third Hercule Poirot adaptation in six years, I think his passion for the character is more evident than ever. He is once again starring as the heavily-mustached detective, in addition to putting his cushion in the director’s chair. That said, I wish I share the same passion for this series that he must have. For the record, I have still not found any time, and supposedly any interest, in checking out “Murder on the Orient Express.” I bought the 4K Blu-ray for a fairly cheap price, but even with the bargain, I still ended up never checking it out. Although I did see “Death on the Nile” last year, which I thought was in a word, fine. Even though it barely meets decency, I did technically watch it twice, as I put on HBO in a hotel room earlier this year and used it as background noise. I thought the casting was effective. And yes, I even liked Gal Gadot in it. Was she stiff at times? Maybe. But she still had enough charisma throughout the picture to be a highlight. Perhaps by just the barest of minimums, I still had enough interest to check out Branagh’s latest attempt at bringing the Poirot character to the screen.
Oh, and Michelle Yeoh is heavily used in the marketing for this film. So that won me over as well. With that in mind, how is the movie?
Unfortunately, not great.
I have seen some people saying online that “A Haunting in Venice” is apparently their favorite or the best of this particular franchise. Again, I still have not seen “Murder on the Orient Express,” but between “A Haunting in Venice” and “Death on the Nile,” I honestly would give the slight edge to “Death on the Nile.” Even with the film’s problems, I will still rather invested in everything that was going on. “A Haunting in Venice” has some entertaining moments. But it is also riddled with its fair share of moments that either annoyed or bored me. The pacing of this film is probably the most insufferable of the year.
The reason why “A Haunting in Venice” does not work, and I hate to say this because there are people I admire in this movie, is the cast. When it comes to these murder mystery style stories, I cannot imagine how hard it is at times to balance a large roster of characters like this. I do not envy Kenneth Branagh for putting himself in this position. That said, I wish the execution for these characters happened to be better. It’s been a little over a week since I have seen “A Haunting in Venice,” I honestly would not be able to tell you a single character’s name without the assistance of the Internet. That goes to show you how unappealing this movie’s characters are. And this is also why I give the edge to “Death on the Nile.” The story is more appealing. There’s more interesting drama. The rivalries kept my attention throughout. “A Haunting in Venice” had none of that. Honestly, as soon as the murder happens, the movie goes from being mediocre to a hot mess.
To be honest though, it is really sad to be saying this, because I think when it comes to the aesthetic of the film, that is the best part of it. I was totally immersed in the film’s environment, but not so much the story. Watching this film reminds me of sometimes when I would play “Watch Dogs.” I would spend some time playing that game neglecting the actual story and find myself more invested in hacking things around Chicago.
The production design of “A Haunting in Venice” is some of the best I have seen all year. I imagine if “Barbie” or “Oppenheimer” did not already exist, it could be my favorite production design of 2023. The film is set in the 1940s and the architecture, interior, and everything in between felt like they fit in with the time. While I will say “Death on the Nile” is the better film, I must admit this is one consistency that is carried over from that film to here, and it is one that is possibly better realized in this case.
Speaking of the film’s look, the cinematography is very well done from start to finish. It sort of fits the spooky, almost creepy crawly vibe the film is going for. If I had one complaint, it is that some of the imagery seems to be a bit fish-eye-like at times. It might not fish-eye by definition. But a lot of it reminds me of a fish eye effect. I would prefer if that effect, if there is one, were removed. There were some shots that were kind of distracting and took me out of the film for a second.
“A Haunting in Venice” is not just a murder mystery, it also doubles as a horror flick. Unfortunately, it is not much better as a horror flick than it is a murder mystery. The film is barely scary, if at all. There are a couple attempts to scare me that probably annoyed me more than they made me jump out of my chair. They kind of felt cheap.
To top this all off, I would like to remind you that this movie prominently features Michelle Yeoh, which I will remind you, earned an Oscar this year for her epic performance in “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I honestly think the Academy made the right choice by giving her the win. With that in mind, it is still too early to tell, but I think the Razzies could potentially make as equally of a smart choice by nominating Yeoh for the next ceremony. This performance is not only a significant step down from her previous effort, but honestly, kind of wasted. Yeoh is a great actor, so I want to hope that this may just be based on the direction that was given to her by Branagh. But when we get to the moment where Yeoh says “Listening…,” I almost had a headache. Do not get me wrong, I still love Michelle Yeoh, but she has been in better movies, and given better performances.
In the end, “A Haunting in Venice” is one of the biggest bores of the year. Thankfully, it is not even Kenneth Branagh’s worst outing in the past few years. Have you ever seen “Artemis Fowl?” If your answer is no, you have just saved yourself an hour and fifty-five minutes of torturous nonsense. That said, of the two Branagh-directed Poirot films I have seen, “A Haunting in Venice” is the worst of them. Maybe one day I will watch “Murder on the Orient Express,” but knowing that this franchise not earned the highest of praise overall, it is hard to say whether I actually will check out that film anytime soon. I have no idea if Kenneth Branagh wants to continue this franchise, but part of me thinks the franchise has died at this point. Then again, maybe he has something neat up his sleeve and I am underestimating him. I always love a good surprise. Sadly though, “A Haunting in Venice” fails as a murder mystery, and it also fails as a horror movie. Terrible combo if you ask me. I am going to give “A Haunting in Venice” a 4/10.
“A Haunting in Venice” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Fun fact, this film was produced by one of the industry’s most revered directors, Ridley Scott. And this is the perfect segway to introduce an all-new segment that I will be debuting this month, RIDLEY SCOTTOBER! That’s right! Once a week, I have not decided on the days yet because this month is kind of busy for me, I will be dropping a brand new review for a Ridley Scott-directed film. It only feels appropriate. There is not too much coming out this month that I want to see right away. I should also note I am not a Swiftie. Plus Scott has a brand new film coming out in November, specifically “Napoleon,” therefore this serves as proper preparation. The first film in the series is going to be “Body of Lies,” a 2008 action thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. I will announce the other films to be reviewed at a later date. 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 “A Haunting in Venice?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Kenneth Branagh’s Agatha Christie adaptations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“65” is written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, the duo who also scripted “A Quiet Place” and “A Quiet Place Part II” alongside John Krasinski. This film stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story) and Ariana Greenblatt (Avengers: Infinity War, Awake) in a story set 65 million years before modern times. In this science fiction adventure, Mills (Driver) crashes on prehistoric earth, which to him is an unfamiliar territory. He discovers within the surroundings of this land, there is intelligent life, specifically a young human girl, and dinosaurs.
“65” is easily one of my most anticipated movies of the year. Yes, it has an early release date. Although it has a lot of promise going into it. Adam Driver is a terrific actor who gives it his all in every project he does. The plot is simple but also engaging enough to not turn me off. Oh, and what was the other thing? A little something called DINOSAURS!
I was not just excited for “65” because dinosaurs were in it, but I happened to be eagerly awaiting to see what precisely “65” would do with these dinosaurs. Because I was hoping we would get a proper use of these creatures after a couple underwhelming “Jurassic World” movies. The last couple were not that great, especially “Dominion,” which I consider an achievement because it somehow managed to make dinosaurs boring. While the trailer for “65” showcased the dinosaurs to some degree, it never fleshed them out. That gave me the impression that the dinosaurs in this movie would be special, they are not going to emit a special kind of staleness. In addition, they will actually come off as scary.
But you know what is also scary? The fact that “65” might just be the worst movie I have seen so far this year.
I am truly disappointed to bring this thought to the table, because I was genuinely excited for this movie. It hurts to watch a movie that sucks. However, it breaks my heart to see a movie that I was rooting for from the beginning turn out as bad as it did. Although I should have seen the writing on the wall. Sony did not do a ton of marketing for this film. While I had no intentions to watch this, mainly because I am not caught up in the franchise, Sony made the decision to release this movie the same weekend as “Scream VI.” “65” is not a pure horror flick, but it has a ton of horror elements wrapped in whatever package it tends to bring forth. Therefore, I would not call it counterprogramming. Maybe Sony thought it could do well as a double feature with its competitor. I am not sure.
Once again, “65” is written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, whose experience with “A Quiet Place” speaks volumes. No pun intended. Much like “A Quiet Place,” “65” is a simple movie with a few characters who are simply trying to survive against dangerous monsters. Or in this case, dinosaurs. Although what made the screenplay for “A Quiet Place” so brilliant compared to a ton of other mainstream films is that it has almost no spoken dialogue. There are a few lines. There is also sign language. But it goes to show the power of film as a visual medium. While “65” does not have a script that insults your intelligence, the way certain lines came to life did not end up coming off in maybe the way I would have hoped. There is one particular exchange between Mills and Koe where the former emits a noise, and there is this awkward pause. Not only is the pause, again, awkward, but the noise sounds almost unnatural. For all I know, maybe Driver was poorly directed in that moment.
“65” is like if “Jurassic Park,” “A Quiet Place,” and “The Midnight Sky” got together to create a lovechild. You have dinosaurs, minimal lines, and an older man/younger girl relationship that moves things along. Except in the case of “65,” they forgot the part where they actually had to make a good movie.
This is not to say there are no positives in “65.” The film’s visual effects look clean and slick. They fit perfect within the film’s environment. The tech looks polished. The dinosaurs look real. I have no problem with the way this movie looks. I would also say some of the shots are screensaver-worthy. Not to beat a dead horse, even though this movie was not executed perfectly, the concept was at least intriguing. There was also some tension to be had in the movie regarding a particular element beyond the main characters’ control. Although I wish the writing happened to be better and the characters had more of a personality than what the movie gave me.
If I had to make a guess, “65” sounded like a great movie on paper, but was ultimately a project whose signs of doom appeared somewhere in the edit. If I pitched a movie to a studio about dinosaurs, I am sure the person on the receiving end would at least be curious. How could they not? Unless they are named Barney, dinosaurs equal instant, guaranteed entertainment. And the “Jurassic World” movies, including “Dominion,” which released two years after COVID-19 ruined everything, made tons of money despite what I and others have to say about them. “65” is not the same movie as “A Quiet Place,” but Beck and Woods evidently use similar techniques from one film to the other. There is not much dialogue, and therefore, there are moments where we are shown things instead of being told them. A basic rule of filmmaking is to show instead of tell, which is part of what makes “A Quiet Place” work like a charm. But what also made “A Quiet Place” work is that I bought into the relationships between its characters. I liked the dynamic between the family. The main duo in “65” barely has any chemistry whatsoever. Both Driver and Greenblatt do their best alongside each other with the material given to them. Although it does not change the fact these two are leads in an awkwardly designed story that I wanted to end as soon as possible.
Also, it says a lot when a movie that only goes for 93 minutes, just over an hour and a half, somehow feels too long, not to mention insufferably boring on occasion. This film is set 65 million years before our times, and yet that is how long this movie sometimes feels. Maybe this film would have made for a good video game. You could go around detailed portions of prehistoric earth. You could fight dinosaurs. You could have cool weaponry. But as a movie, this was a waste of time.
In the end, “65” is a roaring disappoint. What is it with dinosaur movies as of late? “Jurassic World: Dominion” is one of the worst blockbusters to have released in recent memory. And now “65,” which I thought could have given a boost to the dinosaur movie realm, only makes me think that these kinds of movies should be extinct. I am not going to remember “65.” In fact, I frankly think I may have tuned almost all of it out of my head by now. That is how bad this movie is. Go something else if you have the chance. I am going to give “65” a 2/10.
“65” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the latest DC movie, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods.” I had a chance to watch the movie last Thursday, and I cannot wait to share my thoughts on this sequel. 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 “65?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you saw in recent memory, that you were looking forward to, only to have your hopes shattered? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Avatar: The Way of Water” is directed by James Cameron (The Terminator, True Lies) and stars Sam Worthington (Sabotage, Clash of the Titans), Zoe Saldana (Guardians of the Galaxy, The Adam Project), Sigourney Weaver (Ghostbusters, Alien), Stephen Lang (Don’t Breathe, Tombstone), Kate Winslet (Titanic, Divergent), Cliff Curtis (Training Day, Three Kings), and Joel David Moore (Dodgeball, Bones). This film is the long-awaited sequel to the 2009 film “Avatar,” also directed by James Cameron. This time around, Jake and Neytiri, along with their children, move from the forest and adapt to life by the sea. Meanwhile, humanity strikes once again to kill Jake Sully.
I have not seen every film James Cameron has done. I still have not seen “Aliens.” I still have not seen “The Abyss.” That said, he can direct a movie. I loved “The Terminator.” Its follow-up, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” belongs amongst my favorite films of all time. “Titanic” is a massive spectacle with a thrilling climax. “True Lies” is a hilarious, fun action movie. Cameron also recently produced “Alita: Battle Angel,” directed by Robert Rodriguez. It has some of my favorite visual effects and action sequences in recent cinema. The man knows how to entertain.
The first “Avatar” is not my favorite movie James Cameron made. Kind of like “Titanic,” the beauty of the film does not always lie in its screenplay, and more so its looks. However, the film made over $2 billion and is the highest-grossing movie of all time. Naturally, whether Cameron wanted to or not, a sequel definitely had to be made. “Avatar: The Way of Water” is the result of thirteen years of Cameron’s transition from one movie to the next. Even I, someone who barely cares about the original “Avatar,” was curious about this film. The trailers looked decent, and whatever visuals they revealed looked stunning. I had a couple chances to see the trailers in 3D, and I was marveled by a couple sequences in said format.
This leads me to my biggest positive with “Avatar: The Way of Water.” This film is the single-greatest use of 3D I have ever seen. For the record, I got to see the original film in 3D last September, and this film surpasses it. It surpasses some other 3D standouts for me like “Gravity,” “Oz the Great and Powerful,” and “The Hobbit” trilogy. As far as blockbuster filmmaking goes, there is no movie I can think of that has done 3D this well to the point where it felt like more than a cheap gimmick. Speaking of unusual technical specifications, “Avatar: The Way of Water” was shot in 48 frames per second. This is an aspect which “The Hobbit” trilogy also utilized both in filming and during select screenings. For the most part, it works. At times, I felt like I was watching a series of video game cutscenes, which sounds like a detractor, but I kind of intend it as a compliment.
However, the unfortunate thing is that since these are my biggest positives, I imagine there are people out there who might never get to experience said positives if they watch this movie. For one thing, 3D at home is not as big of a thing as it may have been over a decade ago. And I am not sure what Disney/James Cameron plans to do in regards to the frame rate for this film’s home release. Although one positive that can be experienced regardless of the setup is the visual effects.
If I have to be honest, if there is any other film that is going to win the Oscar for Best Visual Effects this year, I might start trying to defy gravity because nothing would make sense any more. Similar to what I said about the 3D, the visual effects were great in the original “Avatar,” but they are a step up in “The Way of Water.” The water sequences in this film are some of the best-looking of the year. For the most part, the visuals in this sequel are as perfect as can be. It really felt like everyone took their time with minute details to allow for the perfect color and polish. Some of the cinematography, done by previous Cameron collaborator Russell Carpenter, accompanies said visuals well. There is one shot of a sunset where my eyes lit up. The aesthetic of “Avatar: The Way of Water” does not disappoint.
What does disappoint instead is the story and characterization. You know, the essential things that make movies worth watching.
While I liked the trailers for “Avatar: The Way of Water,” what these trailers always lacked is depth into what the story is about. The film thankfully provides a story, but not a good one. It is less by the numbers than the first movie, but somehow it feels more boring. The visuals are pretty enough to distract me from that, but the characters are uninteresting. In one of my most recent reviews, specifically for “Strange World,” I said the movie is “like a first date with the most attractive woman alive, only to find out she has zero personality whatsoever.” “Avatar: The Way of Water” is kind of like “Strange World” in the sense that the environment feels more important than the characters, but to the point where the characters lack a certain prominence they would otherwise have in most halfway decent movies.
There have been movies where the characters do not stand out that nevertheless find a way to stick the landing. But not every movie can be “Dunkirk.”
“Avatar: The Way of Water” presents a fascinating concept. Specifically, now that Jake and Neytiri have offspring, how does this affect their behavior compared to the first film? In general, I dug the family dynamic, and there were moments in this film that felt relatable based on said dynamic. Although the characters themselves lack dimension and personality. I admire Sigourney Weaver for trying her best at playing an animated teenage girl, but I would not say it is my favorite performance of hers.
In fact, the family dynamic is not the only concept of fascination. The whole water land itself comes with some halfway decent ideas. Similar to the first movie where a particular tree plays a prominent role in societal beliefs and customs, the equivalent to that in this film is a group of whales. Although as fascinating as it is to see the bond between the bunches of blue characters with whales in this film, this leads to yet another story critique where this film feels like another version of the original, only less watchable.
This movie reintroduces familiar characters like Jake, Neytiri, and Quaritch. It also brings in new faces. Some of these include Jake and Neytiri’s kids: Kiri, Lo’ak, Neteyam, and Tuk. I bet some time after writing this review, I will not remember some of these names. At a point in the movie, the story revolves more about the children than it does their parents. I am not against this. In fact, despite my lack of interest with the story itself, some aspects of this were handled with competency. The film’s new characters have their moments. However, if I have to name a least favorite of the characters, it would be this one person named Spider.
Unlike Jake and the rest of the Sullys, who are half human, half Na’Vi, Spider, who Jake also raised, is entirely human. Although he tends to behave like one of the Na’Vi. While I am optimistic about Jack Champion’s future as an actor and wish him nothing but the best, his character was awfully written. At first sight, the character is presented with an intriguing backstory, but as the movie went on, he felt increasingly out of place, and by the end, I questioned his actions. There are few words that I could come up with to describe Spider as a character. “Conflicting” would certainly be one of them.
“Avatar: The Way of Water” takes a lot of what works in the original. Such things include the visuals, the exploration, the flying sequences. Ultimately, this sequel improves those things. At the same time, a lot of I found to be imperfect with the first film such as the story, the dialogue, and its lack of getting me to care for certain characters, make a return here as well. If you want me to be real with you, the climax of this film, at times, is more entertaining than the climax in the original “Avatar.” Should you pay to see this film in theatres, the climax alone makes the film worth the price of admission. I am clearly not a huge fan of the film, therefore I would not pay to see “Avatar: The Way of Water” a second time. That said, I imagine plenty of people will. I think if there is a reason to see this film, the climax would make for a compelling argument.
The theater experience for “Avatar: The Way of Water” rivals “Top Gun: Maverick” in terms of immersion, but if I had to choose a film between the two to watch again, I think “Maverick” is the superior option because despite the film occasionally coming off as another version of the original “Star Wars,” the characters are likable and serve the story. Do the characters serve the story in “Avatar: The Way of Water?” Sure. But I would say they do so with less charisma and personality than those in “Top Gun: Maverick.”
I have not ridden the “Avatar” theme park ride at Disney World. Maybe if I take a trip there in the future I would give it a whirl, but I just never had the opportunity to ride it. Although I must say that “Avatar: The Way of Water,” much like a ride at Disney World, is wildly immersive, but almost to the point of being a pretty gimmick. The 3D definitely stands out, and while I said earlier the 3D does not feel like a gimmick, it belongs in a film that nearly comes off as a gimmick itself. When I left the film, I thought more about how it took me into Pandora, which may sound like a compliment, until I thought about how little it took me into the lives of its characters. While last year’s big movie event, “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” had some imperfections, I would rather watch that again to see the characters go through their individual journeys. Although one imperfection “No Way Home” has, like “The Way of Water,” was that I found the ending to be somewhat poor. Although the journey to get to the ending for “No Way Home” invested me emotionally while getting me to care for the core characters. I will give credit to “Avatar: The Way of Water” for having a more appealing visual aesthetic to it, but as the old saying goes, “Avatar: The Way of Water” is yet another example of style over substance.
I would even say that “Avatar: The Way of Water” has narration that at times that is either as tacked on or as bad as the original “Blade Runner.” When I say the original “Blade Runner,” I am talking the original. As in, the one where Harrison Ford sounds like he is half asleep when voicing what he learned about Roy. The one that I imagine a lot of young people experiencing the film for the first time will not even get to hear. I am sorry, but for a movie that carries itself so much on visuals, I am somewhat surprised in regard to how much narration this film has.
Through the ages, there have been several movies that have been able to tell a great story while also delivering eye candy. “Star Wars” took me to another galaxy while also presenting the relatable Luke Skywalker. “The Matrix” presents a fun tale of good vs. evil while also showcasing a one of a kind digital landscape. The Academy Award Best Picture winner, “The Shape of Water,” is a beautiful-looking film with an unusual, but still captivating romance. “Avatar: The Way of Water,” finds itself choosing to focus a lot on the film’s background and surroundings to the point where I do not care one bit about the characters in the foreground. Yeah, I know what happens in the movie. But I would flock to a multitude of other movies before this one again because they presented their stories more admirably. I would imagine there are people who are going to leave this movie, much like the original, who would claim they want to live in Pandora. I on the other hand, would not. I would rather live in Middle Earth, where the visuals are just as stunning, but the stories are ten times as interesting.
In the end, “Avatar: The Way of Water” is possibly the biggest disappointment of 2022. Not only because it is James Cameron, not only because the film looks amazing, but because this is a film that was thirteen years in the making. I cannot believe I am living in a year where I have gone back to the cinema to watch “Top Gun: Maverick,” which is a sequel I frankly think was not all that necessary until seeing footage. Meanwhile, I do not think I want to go back to watch “Avatar: The Way of Water” a second time. This is crazy because I have thought about seeing an “Avatar” sequel maybe since I was ten years old. I thought the potential was there. Sadly, the execution was lackluster. But who cares? Sequels are already scheduled, and there is a solid chance that this is going to make a billion, possibly a couple billion bucks at the box office. While the original “Avatar” is similar to titles like “Pocahontas” and “FernGully,” when it came out, it felt like a distinctive title. “Avatar: The Way of Water” not only feels like a slight retread of the original, but somehow comes off as more boring. Does it look pretty? Yes, but so did “Elvis.” If you read my review for that movie, you would know that movies should sometimes do more than just look shiny. That said, “Avatar: The Way of Water” is undoubtedly a technical beast. I applaud Cameron and crew for delivering a solid-looking film. I just wish I could say the same for the story. I am going to give “Avatar: The Way of Water” a 5/10.
“Avatar: The Way of Water” is now playing in theatres everywhere, including formats such as Real-D 3D and IMAX 3D. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Next week I will be sharing my thoughts on the brand new DreamWorks Animation “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.” I am attending a press screening of the film this Monday, so I will share my thoughts on the film as soon as possible. Hopefully it has more substance than “Avatar: The Way of Water.” 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 “Avatar: The Way of Water?” What did you think about it? Or, which film do you think is better? “Avatar” or “Avatar: The Way of Water?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Empire of Light” is directed by Sam Mendes (1917, Spectre) and stars Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Crown), Michael Ward (The A List, The Old Guard), Monica Dolan (A Very English Scandal, Appropriate Adult), Tom Brooke (Preacher, Game of Thrones), Tanya Moodie (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, A Discovery of Witches), Hannah Onslow (This Is Going to Hurt, Ridley Road), Crystal Clarke (Sanditon, Ordeal by Innocence), Toby Jones (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Hunger Games), and Colin Firth (1917, Kingsman: The Secret Service). This film is about a group of people living in 1980s England who work together at a cinema. Two of these people, specifically Hilary, the manager, and Stephen, a recent hire, develop a bond and take their connection to the point of a committed relationship.
There is a saying that Hollywood loves itself. Movies like “La La Land” and “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” highlight such a point. But while those movies are their calendar year’s shining example of “movie about movies” storytelling, 2022 is not short on these kinds of stories. “The Fabelmans,” which is based on Steven Spielberg’s youth, highlights the power of making movies. “Clerks III” doubles as a homage to Kevin Smith’s previous creations while also paying tribute to people want to create a film. I think it also shows how difficult such a process can be, both in front of and behind the camera. “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” which stars Nicholas Cage as himself, pays tribute to various movies he made (and some he did not) while also poking fun at the way certain cinematic stories are told. “See How They Run” features a storyline where people want to turn a play into a motion picture. Later this month, “Babylon,” which is set in old Hollywood, will hit theatres. Some may call it self-indulgent, self-absorbed, or self-obsessed. Based on how I liked all these movies, minus “Babylon,” which I have yet to see, I would call it “writing what you know.” One thing is for sure, Hollywood knows movies.
While “Empire of Light” does not entirely highlight people making movies, it does highlight another important aspect of the filmmaking process, selling the movies. Most of this film takes place at a movie theatre. Not a modern day multiplex like AMC or Regal, but a small venue with a couple screens. The building itself looked beautiful. Similar to how “The Fabelmans” emits a certain magical feeling in regard to filmmaking itself, the cinema here emits an alike feeling to the point where just being inside it feels like an escape from your problems.
Despite being in a digital age where everything is at our fingertips, I am glad we still have movie theaters. In fact, I had the chance to watch “Empire of Light” at the Coolidge Corner Theatre, which if you are not from the Boston area, is a cinema in Brookline, Massachusetts that has some killer Art Deco vibes and a lot of history. It is a great place to see a movie. Watching a movie like this in a theater of that nature, the kind where they open and close the curtains before and after the movie, felt beautifully trippy. The best movies are those that take you to another world, and despite being in an older movie auditorium, I felt like I escaped into another auditorium somewhere else.
Joined by other casting standouts like Michael Ward, Toby Jones, and Colin Firth, “Empire of Light” is led by Olivia Colman, a talented actress who can do no wrong here. Unsurprisingly, she breaks both of her legs in this movie and maybe even a shoulder. I would not be surprised if she receives some chatter this awards season. She portrays Hilary, a cinema manager. From a written perspective, I would say Hilary is a kind of manager I would love to work for. She is competent, occasionally tough, but also fair. In short, she appears to want the best for everyone. Above all, she seems to be in her mojo whenever she happens to be at the cinema. I am kind of jealous of everyone who got to work at the cinema before the 21st century, partially because of what they seemed to provide. Cinemas nowadays still provide a wonderful experience. Also, large formats like Dolby Cinema and IMAX are great ways to enhance blockbuster presentations for example. But there is something about the cinema now, as magical as it is, and yet it seems that some of the magic might have been more evident in a time before Nicole Kidman tried to tell me that heartbreak feels good in a place like this. If I could transport myself to the cinema in this film, I would take the opportunity if it were presented to me.
This leads me to my next ounce of praise, the locations and overall look of the film. Again, the movie theater itself is lovely. It felt massive and at the same time, intimate. The rooftop, especially at night, is ingrained in my memory. There are also some beach scenes that looked crispy. Why should I be surprised? This is from the same director/cinematographer duo who also worked on “1917,” which looked gorgeous in its own right. Now, comparing the two films on a technical level seems unfair as “1917” was designed to look like most of it was done in a single take. But I would say “Empire of Light” is a solid follow-up.
Before I address my problems with the film, another compliment I must give to “Empire of Light” is the sound mix. Following what I said about the magic of the movies, the sound in this movie, is best heard in a theater. The levels could not be better or more immersive. That said, there is one sound I found particularly annoying. Partially because I heard it so many times in other content, but it makes at least seven appearances in this one movie. Do not take my word for it, but gosh does it feel like seven… I do not mind hearing seagulls, but hearing the same seagull sound effect after the fifth time took me out of the film, which is unfortunate considering how immersive the rest of the movie is. I will also address the story. It is not a bad story by any means, but it feels like all sparkle with very little shine. The performances are great, but the writing to support said performances lacks flair at times. I cared for the characters, but I cannot say I was as invested in them as other movies I saw recently.
I often make the assessment that every movie, even unforgivable garbage such as “Morbius,” will always be better in a theater. I will also note there are moments, like certain portions of the score, or one particular repeated sound effect during a scene three quarters of the way through the runtime, that are marvelously hard on the ears and build tension just by becoming the elephant in the room. This film is not as complicated as “Top Gun: Maverick,” but whoever did the sound mixing should be happy with how it came out. If you look at the box office nowadays, you may notice that films that partially rely on spectacle like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” and “Jurassic World: Dominion” are usually the box office kings. Films that are of a tinier caliber like “Vengeance” or “The Fabelmans,” even though they might have have notable people in front of or behind the camera, do not do as well. I am part of the audience who goes to see spectacle fare like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” because the odds are that the big screen experience will be the ultimate way to experience those movies. If you are thinking of waiting to watch “Empire of Light” at home, there is no one stopping you. However, few movies have sounded or looked as good this year given the scale for which this movie aims. There is a reason why Roger Deakins, this film’s director of photography, has 15 Academy Award nominations attached to his name. I would not be surprised, depending on how well this movie does, if he gets nomination 16.
In the end, “Empire of Light” is not my favorite tribute to movies this year, but it is one of the more palatable ones. This has a look to it as attractive as “The Fabelmans,” and as weird as this may be to clarify, not as heartwarming or emotionally charging as “Clerks III.” Despite my slight negatives, I recommend this film. If you have a chance to see “Empire of Light” this weekend, take it. Go out and support this film. Sam Mendes gets a thumbs up from me on his first film after “1917.” I am going to give “Empire of Light” a very high 7/10.
“Empire of Light” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for the upcoming week, because “Avatar: The Way of Water,” finally hits theaters after 13 years of waiting. I already have my tickets for Thursday and I will share my thoughts on the film as soon as possible. These are words part of me never thought I’d say, but here we are. Here is hoping the film is worth the wait, and that it actually has a decent, memorable script this time around. Speaking of “films…” My next review is going to be for a film called “The Mean One.” For those who are not in the know, this is basically a gorier version of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!.” Is this film going to pack in all tons of Christmas spirit? Or did it make me green and icky? Find out in the next review! 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 “Empire of Light?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your movie theater of choice? I am an AMC A-List member, so there are a few AMC locations I usually go to, but one of my favorite places to see a movie is the Sunbrella IMAX at Jordan’s Furniture in Reading, Massachusetts. It is THE place for a big-budget film, and it is also where I will be watching “Avatar: The Way of Water” this Thursday. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 