Universal Studios

Wicked (2024): A Great Leading Duo Cannot Save This Middle of the Road Musical

Posted on by Jack Drees

WARNING: Review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view.

“Wicked” is directed by Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) and stars Cynthia Erivo (Genius, Widows), Ariana Grande-Butera (Victorious, Scream Queens), Jonathan Bailey (Fellow Travelers, Bridgerton), Ethan Slater, Bowen Yang (Awkwafina is Nora from Queens, Saturday Night Live), Marissa Bode, Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones, Pixels), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park, Thor: Ragnarok). This film is based on a book that inspired a popular Broadway musical and centers around the connection between two students at Shiz University… A misunderstood green woman named Elphaba and a popular girl named Galinda.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

“Wicked” is a property that I have heard by name for years. Obviously, I am familiar with some Oz stories, so I know that “Wicked” is connected to that universe. I have seen commercials on television promoting the play when it arrives in my local area. My earliest memory regarding the play has to do with one episode of “Deal or No Deal” I watched when I was 10 years old, when the contestant received an offer from the banker revolving around the play. But I cannot say I have seen the play, nor have I listened to the soundtrack. I have heard decent things about it, I know it is popular, I know people enjoy it. But I have never bothered to check it out. Safe to say, there is a first time for everything.

Perhaps the biggest movie phenomenon in terms of marketing in 2024 so far would have to be “Deadpool & Wolverine.” That film has pushed itself rather hard, gotten so many people looking forward to it, and gotten rather creative with its advertising leading up to its release. Though I say that with a supposed bias because I am definitely the target audience of “Deadpool & Wolverine.” “Wicked” on the other hand, not really. Like any genre, I can appreciate a great musical, but I would not say musicals are my first choice. Nevertheless, I am seeing more than enough promotion for “Wicked,” and I do not think I am alone in this. Though I will admit, like “Deadpool & Wolverine,” there are creative approaches I like regarding “Wicked’s” push. At AMC Theatres, where I usually flock to if I am seeing a movie, they made a reminder for audiences watching whatever film they paid for to follow the traditional rules of moviegoing. As this happens, Jeff Goldblum, who plays the Wizard in the film, says each rule, after which a completely fitting clip of “Wicked” plays.

In fact, this PSA played before my “Wicked” screening as well, which I saw at a Dolby Cinema auditorium at AMC. The video also comes with the rule, “NO SINGING,” which thankfully, my audience followed. Shoutout to my fellow moviegoers for maintaining a respectful atmosphere. But I could tell that I was part of a passionate crowd. There were some enthusiastic responses to certain parts of the film when they came up, I even remember seeing someone below me wearing a witch’s hat. I love when people embrace their inner fan. This is why I often go to conventions because I love those kinds of atmospheres.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Sadly, while “Wicked” clearly has fans, I cannot say I am one of them. I was not one before watching this movie, and I cannot say it turned me into one. This is genuinely one of the most middle of the road movies of the year. One can even argue it is disappointing. Because even as someone who was not the target audience, I could clearly see craftsmanship, love, and effort put into the picture. But there are also some things that have turned me off.

Once again, I am not the target audience for musicals, though I have enjoyed some. In recent years, I have raved about Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” remake time and time again. That said, the songs in this movie, while there are highlights, for the most part, did not really do anything for me. There are some tolerable pieces like “No One Mourns the Wicked,” “Popular,” and of course, “Defying Gravity.” But for the most part, the movie failed to impress me. I thought from the concept, the marketing, and the fantastical universe in which this movie was going to be set, we would get an incredibly vibrant film, but that is not the case.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

When it comes to the color palette, that is a spot where “Wicked” falters. The color grading in this film feels pale and wooden for a place that is clearly supposed to be otherworldly. If anything, it kind of looks like a rushed Marvel movie. Do not get me wrong, I love my Marvel movies. But there are a couple titles I where I think the color grading should have been cleaned up a little bit. It looks kind of empty. That said, the film’s look is not all bad. The production design feels grand and epic at times. Oz looks great. The interiors look great. There’s a shot early on showing a massive field of flowers that captivated me. That also leads me to say that I like the film’s camerawork. The framing feels wide and vast, trying to fit as much information as possible from one side of the screen to the other. This film is shot by Alex Brooks, who is no stranger to shooting musicals. In 2021, she shot “Tick, Tick…BOOM!,” which I adored. Months before that movie came out, she was credited for the less enjoyable but still fun “In the Heights,” also directed by Jon M. Chu. Brooks has a good eye for framing and definitely knows how to make shots feel grand, even if there are other aspects that drag such grandeur down.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Although if I had to name my favorite aspects of the film, there are two that come to mind… The leads. The entire film revolves around the relationship between Elphaba and Galinda. Thankfully, this movie casts both of these parts perfectly. For Elphaba, you have Cynthia Erivo, who not only plays her part well, capturing the uniqueness of her character that goes far beyond her looks, but boy can she sing. There is a lot of singing in this film, and admittedly, some of the singing in this film, particularly from multiple characters, sometimes feels out of place. Though it is not “Joker: Folie à Deux” bad. Some of it just feels tacked on if anything. I imagine some would say all of the singing in the film has a point. From my point of view, maybe it fits better on Broadway. I do not know. There are a lot of scenes within the context of a musical that I happened to buy. But there are other songs that either feel slapped together almost unnecessarily, or just plain annoying. But thankfully, Erivo sings all of her songs well, and the same can be said for Ariana Grande, who practically steals every scene she is in. She plays the popular girl type to a tee. She is fantastic. Dare I even say Oscar-worthy. I hope she gets a nomination. Whether it will be for Best Lead Actress or Supporting Actress we will have to see. I know Universal probably does not want Erivo and Grande competing against each other for the same award. The Golden Globe nominees just came out and both performers are in different categories. Even so, Grande is a knockout. There is an otherworldliness to her character that I bought into. She is funny, charming, and perhaps gives one of the best physical performances of the year. There are plenty of other actors in this film that play their individual parts well. I thought Jeff Goldblum was a great choice to play Oz. Michelle Yeoh is commanding as Madame Morrible, and Jonathan Bailey does a good job playing Fiyero Tigelaar.

As said earlier this review MAY contain spoilers depending on your point of view… This where is where we get into those potential spoilers. You have been warned.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

Kind of like “Dune,” there is one thing “Wicked” hides in its marketing that I would have never gathered from trailers and ads alone. I knew about this before going into the film, because other people dropped the news beforehand. But for those who do not know, “Wicked” is a part one. Early on in the film, the title card of this movie shows up, we see “WICKED” in huge letters, and shortly after, the words “PART 1” shows up. And BOY does this movie feel like a first half of a two part story. You can say the same for “Dune,” a movie that for the record, I happen to fall within the target audience… My point is, I feel like “Dune” does a good job at not only getting me invested in a universe that aesthetically leaps off the screen ten times better than this one does. But I care more about the journey our lead character goes on. In fact, we see him during the start of the film in a certain way, and he fully develops as a character, giving a solid end to his arc in the story. There are questions regarding the character that are left unanswered, but I am intrigued enough to find out how things would unfold in a future chapter. Elphaba develops somewhat in this film, but her development feels slightly incomplete. “Dune,” despite being a book split in half, comes off as a full story. At least to me it does. I would not be surprised if some people disagree. It leaves the audience with questions. But as far as Paul Atreides is concerned, I think the movie gives him a solid progression. It left me knowing enough about the world of Arrakis. It left me knowing enough about Atreides. It left me wanting more. I left “Wicked” feeling as if I was watching an unfinished story that barely kept me awake. I remember last year when “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” came out. Like “Dune,” I happen to be in the target audience for that film too. I loved the movie, and I could tell that like “Wicked,” it was made with love. But also like “Wicked,” if I had a complaint about the film, it definitely feels like a setup movie at times. It is a great setup movie. But there is a reason despite me giving the film a 10/10 for its many positives during my review, I ended up sliding it down a spot on my Top 10 BEST Movies of 2023 list, where “Godzilla Minus One” just so happened to be my number one pick for the year.

Sticking with “Across the Spider-Verse,” I enjoyed all the characters, the animation, the production value, everything that particular movie had to offer. They do way more than enough to make the part one worthwhile. As for “Wicked,” there are decent characters but they are in an off and on story. The world is not as interesting as I hoped it would be. A few songs are okay, but I cannot say I am raving about them. In fact, some of the song sequences gave me a headache. Part of it may do with me seeing the movie in Dolby, but still. If I were to watch the movie a second time either at home or in a regular theater, hopefully that does not happen again. The pacing of this movie is as slow as snail. The movie is two hours and forty minutes long. It honestly almost feels like three or even longer. I found myself rather invested in the second half at times, but the first half? I found myself wanting to fall asleep. But I could not do that, because I was in a Dolby Cinema, and the songs were so loud they were giving me a headache!

As the film was ending, I will be real, despite my many negatives, I was rather riveted by Erivo’s take on Defying Gravity. This is not a song I would listen to on my own time, but within the context of the story, she puts on a good show. There is also, again, really good camerawork in this sequence. There are a couple shots that are so immersive you feel like Erivo is singing right in your face. For many people, I would imagine this would be the reason why the movie is worth seeing. Unfortunately for me, I was immensely tired after the first half to the point where the movie barely redeemed itself by the conclusion. This was a good sequence. I just wish it were in a movie that had more of my attention.

Photo by Universal Pictures – © Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, I left “Wicked” rather unfulfilled. I will remind everyone, this is a part one. Unfortunately, this film failed on an important objective, which is getting me excited for part two. I am probably going to see it, because I know a lot of people will be talking about it. But if I were not reviewing movies, chances are I might skip it unless someone I know invited me to see it as their plus one. Again, I am not the target audience for this movie. It was likely made for someone who was not me. But the same can be said about other movies I reviewed like “Barbie,” “On the Basis of Sex,” and “Hope Gap.” I liked all of those movies! I cannot say the same about this one. If you like “Wicked,” good for you. I am glad you had fun. But I found the soundtrack to be mediocre, the overall look of the film to be slightly unappealing, and the world to lack my overall investment. I have to give credit to certain groups in this movie. A lot of the actors do a good job. The costumes are really nice. The sets definitely have effort put into them. This movie comes with plenty of good, but I nevertheless found an equal amount of bad. You could even say there are things that make “Wicked” watchable, but it is done in a package that failed to win me over. I like Jon M. Chu as a director, and when it comes to unleashing good performances out of his cast, that is where he excels here. But when it comes to creating an enjoyable musical atmosphere, I think he does better job with that with “In the Heights.” I do not love “In the Heights,” but I think it is a slightly better film than “Wicked.” If someone were in the room with me and they put it in on, I would not leave. I would watch it again. As is the case “Killers of the Flower Moon” last year and “Elvis” the year before that, “Wicked” is probably going to be a huge awards contender. But like those two other films, I am definitely in the minority with my negative opinion when it comes to “Wicked.” I mean, I liked the movie more than “Challengers…” Go ahead, punch me in the face. I do not care. I said what I said. All I can do is give my honest opinion. I am going to give “Wicked” a 5/10.

One last thing I want to bring up… I do not know if this was a studio choice or a directorial intention or if this was just my screening, but I want to know if anyone else experienced this. When I saw this film for the first time, I noticed that there was a tint attached in my presentation that was pink and green. It stayed that way during the entire film. You might think I am just seeing things because those are the two consistent colors throughout the picture. Although I must point out that this tint was also present during the trailers. When the MPA warning flashed, I noticed hints of pink in the font. I am not sure what the purpose of that was, but it was kind of distracting. Did anyone else see that too or was it just me?

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

Thanks for reading this review! By the way, a lot of people appear to be seeing “Wicked” as part of a double feature with another film, “Gladiator II.” Be sure to check out my review for that movie as well! Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “Smile 2,” “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” 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 “Wicked?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your most unpopular movie opinion regarding this year in cinema? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Wild Robot (2024): DreamWorks’ Incredible Story On the Beauty and Struggles of Parenting

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Wild Robot” is directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Kit Connor (His Dark Materials, Heartstopper), Bill Nighy (Emma., The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice), Matt Berry (The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, What We Do in the Shadows) and Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible). This film is about a robot who goes by its product name, ROZZUM Unit 7134, or “Roz” for short. The story dives into Roz’s adventures in the wild, including an unexpected encounter with a baby goose, which leads to her becoming said goose’s parent. Now she must do all she can to master something that goes beyond her programming.

“The Wild Robot” is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It is easily my most anticipated animated film of the year. I have been super excited for this film ever since I saw the teaser trailer before watching “Kung Fu Panda 4” in the theater. The footage contained tons of beautiful shots, an interesting color scheme, and even though it did not give a lot the story away, I had a strong feeling this movie was going to be deep. It was going to make the audience think. I had a feeling that “The Wild Robot” would be the 2020s version of “Wall-E,” both in terms of material and quality. Before I get into my thoughts about the movie, I can say the movie has some similarities to “Wall-E,” it has the same DNA, but it is a much different animal.

“The Wild Robot” is what you get when you strip certain parts of “Wall-E” and insert them into a movie whose story is primarily about parenting. Whereas “Wall-E” is about a robot finding love with another robot and saving a plant, this film is about a robot finding out who she is while also dealing with what some would argue is one of the hardest tasks you can ever be given.

While this movie’s protagonist is dealing with a hard task, it is easy for me to say that “The Wild Robot” is one of the best movies of the year. As far as animated movies go, it is hard to say it gets better than this. As much as I am happy for “Inside Out 2” becoming the biggest animated film of all time, “The Wild Robot” clicked with me more. That said, you cannot go wrong with watching either film. But if I had to pick one, “The Wild Robot” would be my choice.

“The Wild Robot” is perhaps an answer for the parents who are forced to take their children to the theater to watch these kinds of movies. Of course, animated movies often appeal to children, but it should not be forgotten that the parents are probably the ones paying for their tickets. I want to know how parents will view this movie by the time it is over. Because I believe this is a story that will appeal to a lot of them.

I see movies as escapes from reality, so if I were to pitch a movie like this to a parent and tell them that this story is perhaps an encapsulation of something you are already dealing with, there could be a better way to sell it. I do not know. But some of the best movies are those that relate to the audience, that speak to them. They are movies that people can identify with containing characters whose personalities and experiences are similar to their own. I think a lot of parents will find something to relate to when they see the character of Roz and everything she goes through. Now you may be wondering, will kids enjoy this movie? Of course they will! It is funny, it is action-packed at times, and it contains characters that easily appeal to that demographic. The main character is a robot and by her side are a variety of wild animals. Kids love those! For all I know, for some younger viewers, this is going to be one of those movies, kind of like “The Incredibles” was for me, that I enjoyed watching as a kid because of its adventure and action elements, but rewatched as an adult with a greater appreciation for how it handles its characters’ struggles of getting older. I honestly would want to know if parents will have more fun with this movie than their own children. But I can say I saw this movie in a theater full of children on a Sunday morning. They seemed to be positively interacting with it for much of the runtime, so it definitely has their appeal.

I would also like to talk about the voicework of “The Wild Robot.” I have seen the trailers for this film, so I did see the typical casting list where they flash a ton of celebrity names. This movie continues the cliche where we use celebrity voice artists as opposed to certain people who primarily do voicework. Although to be fair some of the cast has some notable voiceover experience, like Mark Hamill. With that in mind, not only does everyone do a good job here, I could not tell that they were voicing their own characters. I almost forgot these actors were in the movie. Sure, I knew Lupita Nyong’o was the lead. But as I heard her voice, it sounded more hyperactive than what I used to hearing from her. I am not sure if she piped herself up or if there is a filter being applied to her recordings in post. But it works. I have seen Pedro Pascal in a number of projects, and I not tell he was Fink the fox. Ving Rhames was also in this movie, and I guarantee many of you reading this recognize his voice. From “Mission: Impossible” on the big screen to the current Arby’s commercials on the small screen, Rhames always has a commanding presence. And his character, Thunderbolt the falcon, is also a great example of such a presence. He sounds bold and god-like with every line. But even then, I could not tell that was Ving Rhames. This is not a dig, if anything it is the highest of compliments.

Even though this movie’s cast is recognizable, most, if not all of these cast members put on a disguisable performance. The movie does a much better job at masking the actors doing these voices than say “DC League of Super Pets,” whose leads’ voices I could recognize and become distracted by in a heartbeat. When the credits rolled, I whispered to myself, “Wait, Mark Hamill was in this?!” Looking back, I believe I knew that in advance. But for one thing, I did not see the trailer in awhile. And again, it goes to show how good these voice performances are. These are characters, not celebrities playing themselves.

Going back to what I said about this film being like “Wall-E,” “The Wild Robot” never specifies when exactly it is set. But I was able to pick up that like “Wall-E,” this movie was set in the future. Both films tend to highlight the mistakes we have made as humans. Whether it is not solving climate change or trying so hard to find a new home to the point where we may have forgotten to preserve the one we have. Also, the central protagonists of these movies are robots, which you could argue we are over-relying on for our many conveniences as we speak. Both “The Wild Robot” and “Wall-E” feature several robots created by large corporations. Both robots who we know as these films’ protagonists serve their respective purposes, but they are also tasked with making people’s lives easier. In the case of “The Wild Robot,” we see that Roz’s attention extends to other animals. Although to be fair, “Wall-E” mostly had human characters. I remember there being a cockroach in the movie, but that may be it.

This film also reminded me of “The Iron Giant.” By that I mean the movie is in a sense an edition of that movie where the roles are reversed. Kind of… If you have ever seen “The Iron Giant,” you would know the robot is the fish out of water character, and the main protagonist, Hogarth, helps him adapt to being on earth. In this film, we see Roz go from adapting to her environment on earth, to teaching a gosling everything she knows. There are plenty of animated movies out there featuring robots. Heck, my last review was for “Transformers One,” and that movie has plenty of them. But I am proud to say that “The Wild Robot” is just as masterful as “Wall-E” and “The Iron Giant,” two movies featuring robots that deserve every ounce of praise that they can possibly get. If you want me to be real though, of these three movies, I think “The Wild Robot” is the weakest of the bunch.

This leads me into my problems with the movie. For one thing, the animation style, while definitely creative, sometimes feels unfinished, perhaps on purpose. Sometimes it works, other times it feels cheap. There are several environments that caught my eye. The design of the robot is well done. I loved seeing how this movie represents foliage in certain scenes, which makes it a proper release for this time of year. But there are also certain places or effects that come off as less textured than others. Part of me also questions the way this movie addresses communication between Roz and the animals. We see Roz spending time translating the animals’ language, so we learn after some time that Roz can understand the animals. But we are seeing Roz communicate and have full-fledged conversations with these animals in English. I get that a lot of movies tend to personify animals and have them speak English. But I am surprised on how well both the robot and these animals understood each other. Perhaps all the conversations were in English for us, the audience. It is a minor complaint, if that. Maybe with a rewatch that complaint will go away. Besides, the movie has good dialogue. It has a lot of funny lines from several characters, even those who barely appear in the film at all.

The script itself is an impressive look at what it is like to be a parent. I say this as if I have kids. I do not. But from what I have heard and seen about parenting, this movie presents parenting as a concept that no one really understands until they try it, until they do it. There is a moment where Roz finds out she is the first point of contact of a newborn gosling. Pinktail, a possum played by Catherine O’Hara, explains to Roz that she is now said gosling’s mother. Roz responds by saying she does not have the programming, to which Pinktail tells her “No one does.” I was a first-born child. I can only imagine what my parents were thinking when they first had me. I am sure they were happy, but also in a neverending state of asking questions. I probably presented them with situations that they did not see coming. Even if I was a second-born child, chances are I could have done the same thing. But I recognize that raising me was a learning curve. I can only imagine how hard it is for Roz, who is not only of a different kind than the gosling, who we eventually know to go by the name Brightbill, but is programmed specifically for helping humans. Did she ask for something like this to happen? No she did not. But she handles it as best she can because while parenting is not in her programming, as a robot she is designed to complete tasks, and to her, this is just the latest one she has been given.

It is also rather refreshing to see an animated movie about a parental figure like this. When I look back at DreamWorks’ animated slate for example, the movies are normally about younger or childless characters. Sure, Shrek and Fiona have children, but they progress to that point after multiple movies. Yes, you can say Hiccup from “How to Train Your Dragon” is parent-like, but his relationship sometimes presents itself somewhat similarly to that of an owner and their pet as opposed to a parent and child. That, and the first film spends time showing complications between Hiccup and his own father. Although in “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World,” the movie ends on a note that is perhaps reminiscent of what it must feel like for a child to leave the nest after so many years. Age is not the biggest topic or concern in “The Wild Robot,” but whereas we have seen several movies of this nature where there is a mentor figure hanging somewhere in the background, maybe as a prominent supporting character, Roz, our main hero sort of becomes a mentor figure herself. Yes, she is a fish out of water, and you could also argue that Fink the fox and other characters are helping Roz in her journey. But it is nevertheless refreshing to see a movie of this kind where we focus on Roz’s concern on whether her goose will be able to fly, as opposed to one where the goose must learn how to fly no matter the cost.

And it is not like the movie refuses to give depth to Brightbill the goose. The movie decently highlights his journey and his individualities. This movie represents a journey that many parents can relate to, but also does a great job at showing Brightbill’s struggles of fitting in. He is kind of an outcast. Not only did I see his struggles that came with being different, but in the case of a character like Roz, I could only imagine her struggle realizing how others treat her child times. But this is ultimately not Brightbill’s movie, it is Roz’s movie. And I can guarantee, Roz’s movie is a fantastic one.

In the end, “The Wild Robot” is one of the year’s finest films. The animation is sometimes iffy, and the climax feels oddly bigger than I would have expected out of a film like this, but it does not change the fact that this is one of DreamWorks’ most unique movies. Is it my favorite DreamWorks animation? Probably not. Given time to marinate over the past week I thought of a few movies I enjoyed more. The first two “Kung Fu Panda” movies come to mind. “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” has gotten a few watches out of yours truly since its release nearly two years ago. “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” is one of those films that came out at a perfect time for me and I find it to be a marvelous story. But if I had to round out my top 5 DreamWorks Animations, “The Wild Robot” would probably be up there at this point. And it deserves to be. It is a deep story showcasing both the beauty and the struggles of parenting. It is about a robot who learns to become more than what it was designed to be. It is a movie that kids will probably enjoy when they are younger, but will probably see in a different way as they age. If there is one movie in theaters you should see right now, this might be it. I am going to give “The Wild Robot” a 9/10.

“The Wild Robot” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new sequel, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” which I will give some credit, the movie is prompting conversations. As far as whether my addition to the conversation is positive or negative, you will find out about that soon enough. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Wild Robot?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your favorite DreamWorks Animations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the latest entry to the MCU and one of my most anticipated movies of the year. You will have to find out next week if it lives up to the hype. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Twisters?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Twister” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Fall Guy (2024): David Leitch’s Love Letter to Stuntwork

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Fall Guy” is directed by David Leitch (Bullet Train, Deadpool 2) and stars Ryan Gosling (Barbie, La La Land), Emily Blunt (Oppenheimer, Edge of Tomorrow), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Godzilla, Bullet Train), Hannah Waddingham (Ted Lasso, Sex Education), Teresa Palmer (The Choice, Point Break), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), and Winston Duke (Us, Black Panther). This film is inspired by a 1980s TV series of the same name and centers around a Hollywood stuntman named Colt Seavers who is tasked with finding the missing star of a film directed by his ex.

July 21st, 2023 to me will forever be known as one of the biggest days in the history of moviegoing. You have two high profile films opening on the same day, “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” both of which have high anticipation and dedicated audiences. Both films ended up making tons of money overtime with “Barbie” becoming the biggest film of the year and “Oppenheimer” earning more at the box office than any other biographical film in history. Now, less than a year later, a couple of the stars from those competing movies join forces for “The Fall Guy,” a project I was curious about for some time. You have “Barbie’s” Ryan Gosling, who I’d argue gave the best supporting performance of the past year. And you have “Oppenheimer’s” Emily Blunt, who also stood out in her role.

This leads to my first positive of the film. Gosling and Blunt’s characters, Colt and Jody, are a match made in Heaven. And I am not necessarily talking about their attachment to each other, or much they like each other, or how good they look together.

Although to be real, they do look pretty freaking good together…

In fact, the movie makes it clear that these two are not always on the best terms. But what I mean is that these two, even in moments where they clearly are not supposed to align with each other, have undeniable chemistry. Honestly, it is some of the best chemistry I have seen in a big budget movie in a while. I am not going to pretend that either one of these actors are giving performances equal to their “Barbenheimer” outings, but when it comes to “The Fall Guy,” these two deliver stellar portrayals of their respective characters, and when they are on screen together, it is simply put, magical.

There are a lot of stories out there in the realm of movies where the people behind the projects are expressing their passion for the craft. Steven Spielberg’s “The Fabelmans” does a good job at tributing filmmakers trying to get into the industry. Damien Chazelle’s “La La Land” is a salute to the dreams of stars, including hopeful actors. I even thought Kevin Smith’s “Clerks III” was a great encapsulation of what it is like to make a passion project. What it is like to be an auteur. What it is like to take on such a monumental effort of a film without realizing what it is you’re getting into. Similarly, “The Fall Guy” is clearly a love letter to stuntwork. The movie itself is about a stuntman, has tons of stunts in it, and it is directed by someone who has a history of overseeing stunts in film. David Leitch has helmed some of the biggest action movies in recent years like “Deadpool 2” and “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.” Before that, he was responsible for stunts in “The Matrix Reloaded,” “Underworld: Evolution,” “300,” “Tron: Legacy,” and “Jupiter Ascending.” On paper, if anybody was qualified to direct “The Fall Guy,” it would be David Leitch. In execution, the results are fantastic.

“The Fall Guy” is packed with one thrilling action sequence after another. Whether it is a simple moment where you have characters on foot, a high speed chase through the city, or a so-called fight in an apartment, everything in this movie had me glued to the screen. Even the moments where we just watch Colt Seavers doing his job is engaging as heck. One of the best scenes of the movie is where we see his character repeatedly set on fire. Not only does it showcase the dangers of his job, but again, this movie is a love letter to stunts, and it also showcases what the people making our movies go through for our entertainment. This movie showcases that in a way that is informative while also doubling as a standout scene.

One thing I always noticed in David Leitch’s movies is that at some point, there will be at least one big A-List celebrity cameo. In “Hobbs & Shaw,” the movie seamlessly finds a way to have Kevin Hart and Ryan Reynolds pop up for a scene. During my initial watch of “Bullet Train,” I found myself delightfully shocked to see the latter of those two actors appear in that film for a hot second. Without giving much away, the last moments of “The Fall Guy” has a cameo from a celebrity that I am sure many of you reading this would probably know. As far as cameos go, it is probably one of my favorites in recent years. I burst into pure laughter when this person showed up. Regarding who that person is, I will just let you find out for yourself.

“The Fall Guy” is one of those movies that is clearly going after a wide audience. If it sticks the landing, that is of course, a big fat win. And thankfully, it does. Perhaps the biggest compliment I can give “The Fall Guy” is that the movie presented itself in such a way to the point where my mom ended up going to the theater to check it out. Turns out, she had a great time. She is not an action movie person. But I must say that if you do not like action movies and are hesitating on checking this film out, I would hold those hesitations at the door and give the movie a shot anyway. Because this film is more than just action. It also does well in the humor department. I found myself laughing quite a bit. I also would say the film works well as a romance story. It does not feel overly cheesy, and as mentioned, I like the two leads enough to the point where I would not mind seeing them together in a relationship. With “The Fall Guy” going after a multitude of demographics, perhaps even the “Swiftie” crowd at one point, it is arguable that there is some noticeable potential for disappointment because of how many things the movie tries to shove in a single package. But somehow, everything flows naturally.

“The Fall Guy” is probably not going to win any Oscars. Not only because there is no such thing as a Best Stunts category. By the way, I was not surprised that the movie found a way to note this fact in the script. But on top of that, I would imagine “The Fall Guy” is not the kind of movie the Academy would hail as one of the year’s best. It could pick up a technical nomination or two. But I doubt it is going to get much more than that. But this is the kind of movie that I think is best watched with a group of people. The film is now available to stream at home, so you could gather some friends and watch it at your place. But if you want my recommendation, if “The Fall Guy” is playing in a theater near you, go see it there. The action is worth seeing on the big screen. The sound is incredible. And it is undoubtedly an immersive experience. Nothing beats watching Ryan Gosling speed through the city in a car with a dog who only understands commands in French. And it is even better on the big screen.

In the end, “The Fall Guy” is a rare flick that has something for everyone, and also one where those somethings exceed the bare minimum. “The Fall Guy” is a movie that I would honestly recommend to just about anyone looking for something to watch because if you are not an action junkie, I think this is nevertheless a fairly accessible title. It’s got comedy. It’s got romance. It’s got drama. It’s got all you can want in a movie. As far as mainstream titles go, this should have done a lot better at the box office than it did. Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt are excellent in the film. As for other standouts in the cast, I really enjoyed Hannah Waddingham as Gail, a producer on Jody’s film. If you do watch “The Fall Guy,” please stick around for the credits. There are some cool behind the scenes moments you might not want to miss. I am going to give “The Fall Guy” an 8/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Coming soon, I will have reviews for “Tarot,” “IF,” “The Garfield Movie,” “I Saw the TV Glow,” “Back to Black,” and “Summer Camp.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Fall Guy?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could take one star from “Barbie” and one star from “Oppenheimer” and put them in a movie together? Which ones would you want and what would the movie be about? For me, I’d love to see Simu Liu and Florence Pugh do a movie together where they play love interests. I think they’d have good chemistry. Let me know your selections down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new horror movie “Abigail.” I have been DYING to talk about this flick for a long time. I saw it last month, and could not stop thinking about it since. Look forward to my thoughts coming soon. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Monkey Man?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Dev Patel performance? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024): Jack Black Does His Best in a Bland Fourth Installment to One of DreamWorks Animation’s Finest Franchises

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Kung Fu Panda 4” is directed by Mike Mitchell (Trolls, The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part) and Stephanie Stine (Raya and the Last Dragon, How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World) and stars Jack Black (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, School of Rock), Awkwafina (Renfield, Migration), Bryan Cranston (Godzilla, Malcom in the Middle), James Hong (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Mulan), Ian McShane (John Wick, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), Dustin Hoffman (Kramer vs. Kramer, Rain Man), and Viola Davis (Suicide Squad, Fences). This fourth installment to the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise centers around Po, who must become the Spiritual Leader and seek the next Dragon Warrior. As he deals with this new curveball in his life and finds himself in kahoots with a grey fox, Po must also keep the evil Chameleon from bringing back his past foes from the spirit realm.

One of the reasons why I am such a movie nut is because ever since kindergarten, I had a television in my bedroom. Therefore, almost every night, I would put a movie on the television. Around third and fourth grade, one of the movies I would loop on my DVD player is “Kung Fu Panda.” And I mean it when I say loop. One of the things I noticed early on about that DVD is that unlike many others I owned, it automatically starts the movie after a short period of inactivity. So when I would fall asleep to it, I would eventually wake up and find myself watching another scene from the film. It was like playing movie roulette. Safe to say, I watched “Kung Fu Panda” a buttload of times as a kid. And I must also note that the second film, which I watched a few years later, is on the same level as the original for me. To be frank, based on a recent rewatch of all three films, I think the second one might be my favorite. The third one’s not bad, but it has its fair share of weaknesses. It leans more heavily towards a comedic route whereas the other two tend to keep comedy and drama slightly more balanced. Although that is kind of funny to say because if I had to choose a movie I think is the funniest of the three, my mind directs itself to “Kung Fu Panda 2.” Guess it goes to show how much I liked it.

When they announced a “Kung Fu Panda 4,” I did not think it was as odd of an idea as say, a “Toy Story 4” when they announced that. That said, when they announced a “Toy Story 4,” I was not prepared for how much I would end up enjoying it. Even though “Kung Fu Panda 3” is the weakest of the previous installments, I thought it did an okay job tying things up in a bow and sending off our characters with grace. But now, apparently, there is more material to unravel. If “Toy Story 4” could work, there is always a chance that “Kung Fu Panda 4” could work as well.

What did I think of this new “Kung Fu Panda” installment? Much like the “Toy Story” movies, I can claim “Kung Fu Panda” is 4 for 4. All the movies released in this franchise are good. Unfortunately, also like “Toy Story,” this fourth installment is the worst of the quadrilogy.

That said, there is one noticeable positive consistency between this film and its predecessors, and that is Jack Black as Po. Obviously, having done the amount of material he’s done in the past, Black has the Po character down to a bit of a science. When it comes to “celebrity” voice actors, I think Black is one of the most talented working today. He is dynamic, upbeat, and always in the moment. He spews every line like he knows there is no tomorrow. There is always a sense of passion with his delivery. As I will highlight in this review, this movie does not have the best storytelling or writing. But Black makes the most of what’s in front of him.

While the main storyline with Po definitely has its moments, one of the most noticeable problems of “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a subplot between the two dads. You have Po’s biological father, Li (Cranston) and his adoptive father, Mr. Ping (Hong) getting into an adventure of their own. Something I have come across a lot through this movie and my recent rewatch of the other three is that these films tend to highlight lessons and experience that can tie to parenting. This one is no exception. An enormous heartbeat that drives the subplot involving these two fathers are their worries for their son. While something like this may come off as relatable to an older audience, perhaps a select few adults who saw these movies as kids and passing the torch to the next generation, it is the weakest part of the film.

In fact, the balance of comedy and drama is not the only thing that seems to be missing in this film. You know who is also missing? The Furious Five. Now, the film does establish they are missing for a reason. They are off on other missions. But a huge part of the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise is seeing Po interact with these five warriors. Unfortunately, co-director Stephanie Stine said on a Discord Q&A they were not in the movie due to the costs of the original actors. I missed them throughout this film, they have great chemistry together.

Instead, the closest thing we get to a side warrior in this film is Awkwafina as Zhen. I will give this character one thing over the Furious Five. Unlike the Furious Five, this new character is not just named after its respective animal. Imagine if I had a kid one day and I named it “Human.” That’s a choice if there ever was one. Moving onto more important characteristics, I will also note that this character very much represents someone who has seen a lot through urban life. Yes, we have seen Gongmen City in “Kung Fu Panda 2,” but “Kung Fu Panda 4” introduces a different kind of city in Juniper City. The first connection I can immediately make with this city with something in our lives is New York, particularly Manhattan. Everyone’s on the move, it’s crowded, and the film goes on with the fitting notion that you cannot trust everyone.

As for Awkwafina’s performance in the film, I had similar feelings regarding it to how I felt watching her performance in “Migration.” I was pleasantly surprised with it. Unlike “Migration,” Awkwafina plays a much more central character this time around so we see much more of her, but I was delighted to have my expectations exceeded. Her performance is definitely enhanced by some okay writing and layered storytelling. Again, compared to the other installments, the story and writing is not as good. But Zhen’s character is one of the script’s highlights. I was kind of worried that she was going to be an annoying sidekick who would get my nerves real fast. And while she is far from the franchise’s best character, the way she is handled in this movie gets my approval.

As of now, “Kung Fu Panda” is a multigenerational franchise. There are a fair share of gen y and z individuals who likely found themselves invested in some crevice of the property at least once when they were kids. Some of those people probably know or have children of their own now that they can share this movie with. Additionally, they made a television series on Netflix called “The Dragon Knight” that some younger viewers likely watched, so the age range this movie is targeting is slightly diverse. As someone who was introduced to the first movie by watching it at the IMAX at eight years old, I have a bit of a nostalgic connection to this property. And a big selling point of this movie is the nostalgia factor. Not just having heroic faces like Po and Shifu back, but also having the franchise’s villains return as well.

…Kind of.

As mentioned earlier, this movie features the Chameleon (Davis), who can turn into other beings, including Po’s old enemies. This means we see the return of Tai Lung (McShane), even if it is some grade B variant of the character because this Tai Lung does not necessarily come with the same depth as the one we saw in the original film. Not that I’m saying this character’s depth is supposed to be exactly the same. The chameleon is the main antagonist this time around. This story is more about her. That said, I liked her motivation to copy as many kung fu masters’ abilities as she can. On paper, it sounds enticing. Voice-wise, Viola Davis was a decent pick to voice the character. She does a good job with the role.

That said, it is nice to see McShane come back to voice Tai Lung, especially when this movie features other characters from the franchise’s past, both heroic and villainous, and we don’t even get a line out of them. We also see Lord Shen and Kai, the villains of “2” and “3” respectively. But they don’t make much of a contribution to the final product. They’re just there. This movie runs at a tight 94 minutes, which is consistent with the previous installments, and the runtime of DreamWorks Animations in general. I know there appears to be a formula to making these movies, but I would not mind them expanding the runtime just a tad to get a little more out of the other movies’ villains, especially when we see as much of Tai Lung as we do. For all I know, their respective actors said “no,” were busy, or they were never in the plan to begin with. But this could have been the “Spider-Man: No Way Home” of the “Kung Fu Panda” franchise where we get an epic return of the franchise’s villains. Maybe that was the plan all along, it did not fall into place, and the crew had to work with what they had. They had to work with no Furious Five, and a couple of wasted villain cameos. At a certain point it could have been too little too late. Is the movie still watchable with the material we have? Sure. But it could be better.

Much like “Kung Fu Panda 3,” the humor seems to be mile a minute. Unfortunately, the jokes are not enough to save the movie. The problem with having quite a bit of jokes is that not all of them are going to hit. They are quite off and on. There are a fair few that land, but there are also many that don’t. The jokes that miss in this film are by no means the worst I have ever heard. I was never offended. They just didn’t work for me. Despite the movie’s flaws, tonal differences from its predecessors, and lack of Furious Five, I am still glad I saw it. I had a good time with what was given to me. But I will not deny that unlike the franchise’s previous weakest link, “Kung Fu Panda 3,” which I had an urge to watch a second time as soon as I left, I do not think “Kung Fu Panda 4” sits in the same camp. That said, give it a shot and see what you think. For all I know, it may be a better experience for you.

In the end, “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a fun movie, albeit a slightly forgettable one. This movie comes with the pros of its predecessors from a polished animation style, flashy action sequences, a great score composed Hans Zimmer and for the first time in this franchise, Steve Mazzaro. To top it off, the movie delivers a spectacular voice performance Jack Black. Having seen this movie though, I do not know if I want to see a fifth installment. That said, if another “Kung Fu Panda” gets made, I hope that they can bring back some of the dramatic flair of the original two movies. I do not mind humor. I am not saying “Kung Fu Panda” should not be funny. If anything, it is a franchise that lends itself to comedy. I just wish the jokes we got were better. Also, between a continuously likable protagonist with Po, an okay supporting character with Awkwafina’s Zhen, and a somewhat well realized, but noticeably gimmicky antagonist with the Chameleon, the characters serve the story sufficiently enough for it to be halfway decent. “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a chance to introduce the franchise to a new generation. But I think a better way would be to put on one of the first two movies. But that’s just me. I am going to give “Kung Fu Panda 4” a 6/10.

“Kung Fu Panda 4” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews, you’re in luck! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Kung Fu Panda 4?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see the other “Kung Fu Panda” movies? Tell me your thoughts on them! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Drive-Away Dolls (2024): Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan Sparkle in a Quickly Paced, Splendidly Realized Thriller

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Drive-Away Dolls” is directed by Ethan Coen (The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men) and stars Margaret Qualley (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Fosse/Verdon), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers) Beanie Feldstein (Booksmart, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising), Colman Domingo (Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, Rustin), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Bill Camp (The Queen’s Gambit, The Night of), and Matt Damon (Oppenheimer, The Martian). This film centers around two women who find themselves intertwined with crime-riddled shenanigans during their last minute road trip to Tallahassee, Florida.

So far, February has not been kind to yours truly. At least in terms of the movies we are getting. Shoutout to “Madame Web” for literally slapping me across the face, kicking me in the shin, and gouging out my eyeballs. Then again, it’s February. I should not be surprised that we are getting some underwhelming sacks of crap. But even over the past decade there is often at least one film in February that not only stands out, but ends up being a contender for best film of the year. In 2014 there was “The LEGO Movie.” In 2016 there was “Deadpool.” In 2019 there was “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World.” But in this instance, it seems that February is back to its usual shenanigans of destroying any chances of good times at the movies unless the movie you’re seeing came out in the previous year.

Well, “Dune Part Two” happened, but that’s another story for another time.

Speaking of “Dune Part Two,” I have to say of all the movies coming out in February this year, “Drive-Away Dolls” takes my second place position for my most anticipated title of the month. That is one spot below “Dune Part Two,” so at least I had something to look forward to the week before that one came out.

And thankfully, I would have to say “Drive-Away Dolls” is a delight. It contains two likable leads, a well-rounded supporting cast, and plenty of intriguing moments that are accentuated by good characters. Many of the film’s wins perhaps would not be possible if it were not for Ethan Coen’s vision. I have not seen all of the Coen Brothers’ movies, regardless if they are solo or together. That said, this one works because it successfully delivers a big bang in such a short runtime. The scenes fly by partially because of fast-paced dialogue and fairly tight editing. There are moments to breathe, but I will not deny that the movie gives quite a bit in just 84 minutes including credits.

Technically speaking, this is one of the most vibrant films I have watched in recent memory. This film is colorful, bright, and polished. One film I watched earlier this month was “Lisa Frankenstein,” and in that review I say the film “looks like something from another world.” When I look back at that movie and compare it to “Drive-Away Dolls,” they sometimes feel similar from a looks perspective. Both offer spectacular lighting that offers a bit of variety from scene to scene. Some of the costumes in both projects stand out. And there are moments where even the sets are easy on the eyes. There is a particular hotel in “Drive-Away Dolls” that not only looks exquisite, but beautifully fits the tone of the movie. Every moment we spend in this hotel with our two leads is worthwhile.

Speaking of the two leads, not only do Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan give solid performances that allow the duo to be as dynamic as possible, but I cannot see anyone else playing them. I have respect for both of these actresses. I have not had a ton of experience with Margaret Qualley, but I thought she shined like the sun in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” one of my favorite Quentin Tarantino flicks. I noticed some of her mannerisms from that movie seem to make their way into her role of Jamie as well. And while I would not specifically call “Drive-Away Dolls” a comedy per se, there are plenty of comedic elements. There is a natural goofiness, if that is even the correct term to use, to the main duo that is incredibly palpable. The movie does a good job at fleshing this duo out and authenticating them. They feel like they belong in a world like the one this movie presents.

And of course, Geraldine Viswanathan plays the other leading lady, Marian. Sticking with the comedy aspect, I think Viswanathan also does a good job at playing up some of the more comedic parts of the film. I should not be surprised though given her background. She was in one of my favorite comedies of 2018, “Blockers.” She was also a regular in TBS’s “Miracle Workers,” which is a fantastic show. Viswanathan is a natural when it comes to matching her personality with the movie’s tone.

But just because there are comedic moments in the film, does not mean the it refuses to get serious for a moment or two. Multiple tones intertwine beautifully and in no way feel inconsistent. That said, knowing what this movie is about, how the events progress, and the way everything unfolds, of course comedy is to be expected out of something like this. I do not want to give any spoilers as to certain things that happen in the movie as the marketing shrouds some things in secrecy and I was admittedly surprised when certain things come up, but this movie gets wild.

On top of Qualley and Viswanathan, you have an amazing group of supporting actors. Need any more proof this film scores big in the comedy department? Watch Beanie Feldstein play Sukie the cop. Perfect is a word I wish to use sparingly in life, but Feldstein’s performance comes close to perfection. Bill Camp as Curlie has a notable presence throughout the picture. And Matt Damon easily makes the most of his screen time. Similarly, I think I made the most of my time watching this film. I would give it a thumbs up.

In the end, “Drive-Away Dolls” is quite good! In fact, sometimes, it delivers a flair only a movie of its kind can bring to the table. Great acting. Great directing. Eye-popping aesthetics. What more could you want? “Drive-Away Dolls” is not the most surprising movie of all time, and when it comes to quality I have to admit there are better movies from the Coens, not to mention in general, but if you want a good movie that could make for a decent one time watch, “Drive-Away Dolls” is an entertaining ride. I am going to give “Drive-Away Dolls” a 7/10.

“Drive-Away Dolls” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you liked this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Bob Marley: One Love,” “Dune Part Two,” “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” and “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.” 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 “Drive-Away Dolls?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some good road trip movies that come to mind? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Lisa Frankenstein (2024): Kathryn Newton Shines in a Forgettable John Hughes-Esque Coming of Age Story with an Edge

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Lisa Frankenstein” is directed by Zelda Williams and this is her feature-length debut. The film stars Kathryn Newton (Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Blockers), Cole Sprouse (Five Feet Apart, Riverdale), Liza Soberano (Trese, Make It with You), Henry Eikenberry (Euphoria, The Crowded Room), Joe Chrest (Stranger Things, 21 Jump Street), and Carla Gugino (Night at the Museum, Spy Kids). This film is a coming of age story showing the love connection between a young girl and a corpse who returns from the dead.

When it comes to the February 2024 cinematic lineup, “Lisa Frankenstein” is one of those films that had my attention from the moment I heard about it. While it did not look like the next big thing, the marketing showcased plenty to savor. For starters, the idea is kind of clever. I like the concept on the surface. The vibe the film seems to be going for definitely screamed kooky, but with a pinch of romance. This film was set to release the week before Valentine’s day making it an appropriate watch for such a time.

You also have a writer like Diablo Cody behind the scenes, who has not only written films I have enjoyed in the past like “Tully” and “Juno,” but she also has horror experience with “Jennifer’s Body.” I have only seen a bit of the film, but I didn’t dislike what I saw. I think it would be unfair of me to give a score on “Jennifer’s Body” without having seen the whole thing. That said, I recognize it is not Shakespeare.

This film is also the directorial debut of Zelda Williams, a name that I knew for years thanks to the Internet. But for those who do not know who Zelda Williams is, she is Robin Williams’s daughter. Yes, that one. I am not always the biggest supporter of nepotism, and I say that knowing that the film industry is sometimes notorious for it. But I was curious to see if Williams had a knack for this kind of work. While doing research for this review, I found out Williams has a history of making music videos, so she is not new to this industry. And having seen “Lisa Frankenstein,” that makes complete sense. Everything in this film is nicely framed and looks like something from another world. The lighting throughout the film comes in quite a variety. It’s also easy on the eyes. The color grading has this weird pixelated-like gloss to it that I found rather appealing. When it comes to this film’s aesthetic, it is a job well done. At times it felt intimate. At others it felt roomy. At others it feels downright fantastical. I am not sure if this is a proper tech demo movie for say a big screen TV, but maybe it will be serviceable for a 32 inch model.

Unfortunately though, the movie is almost all looks, with little personality. The script has a couple decent lines, but the vibe delivered between said lines feels inconsistent. I understand that this is a movie that blends the reality of the 1980s with the fantasy of a man coming back to life. But it is not enough to make a decent package. If anything, this film feels more like a mish mash than a proper horror comedy at times. It doesn’t really know what it wants to be. Now I say that knowing that we have gotten a decent number of movies over the years that combine genres. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is a proper example. But I also recognize that I would probably not have this complaint if there were anything that would make those genre increments stand out. Sure, this movie has a bit of a throwback feel to 1980s John Hughes coming of age movies like “Weird Science” or “Pretty in Pink,” but it is not as good as those. If I watch “Lisa Frankenstein” again, there is less of a chance that I would finish the film and say “That was fun, another round,” compared to me going “You know what’s a good watch right now? A John Hughes movie.”

Kathryn Newton does an excellent job playing a somewhat twisted, but also kind of innocent lead role. There are a lot of layers to unpack with this character as the movie goes along and while I am not sure what roles Newton will take following this picture, this film goes to showcase her range. She can be dark, she can be down to earth, she can be otherworldly. She can do it all. Going back to the film’s aesthetic, Newton’s hair and makeup are on point. I have no idea if “Lisa Frankenstein” is even going to be considered for any makeup awards during next year’s awards season, it is still too early to tell, but I would say in regards to 2024 cinema, “Lisa Frankenstein” is this year’s first notable contender in that category.

The rest of the cast all do a decent job with their roles. Cole Sprouse proves silence is golden with his portrayal of The Creature. Liza Soberano gives a fine showcase of her talent as Taffy. But aside from Newton’s layered protagonist, I think the character that stood out to me the most in the movie is Carla Gugino as Lisa’s stepmother, Janet.

For some young people, it is hard enough to adapt to a new parent or guardian. “Lisa Frankenstein” presents a reality for our protagonist that makes it come off as near impossible for her to adapt to her stepmother. The movie presents a rivalry between these two that is probably more riveting than it needs to be. And a lot of it is in the performances between these two. Of course, the shenanigans our protagonist gets into plays a significant role as well, but nevertheless.

Once again, this film is directed by Zelda Williams, and despite my negative comments for this film, I am not going to tell her to give up on filmmaking. I think she does a fine job with this movie in terms of bringing various sets and talent to life. Some frames from this picture still linger in my mind because of how stylish they come off. But when it comes to characterization and writing, that is where the movie needs work. It has a great concept but it just doesn’t stick the landing. But I also cannot entirely blame her, because she did not write the film. That job belongs to Diablo Cody, who I like as a writer, but this is not her best work.

In the end, “Lisa Frankenstein” has good intentions, but comes off with lackluster execution. Despite some inklings of quality, I will not deny that this movie could have been better. As a horror movie, it is not that eerie or terrifying. As a comedy, it does not have many laughs. When you take these ideas together, the movie kind of falters in both genres. There are good things about it, yes, but those good things do not justify a rewatch. Those good things barely stand out. That is if they do at all. Kathryn Newton’s great. Sure. Carlo Gugino is terrific. Sure. The design across the board almost couldn’t be better. Double sure. But I also think that if you are at the movies right now, there are better options for your choosing. “Lisa Frankenstein” is not offensively bad. But it could be better. How better? Well, judging by my score I think “Lisa Frankenstein” could be better than a 5/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be a fun one. It is for the most anticipated film in the history of the world, “Madame Web!” Boy oh boy! I am sure everyone is expecting Scene Before’s first EVER 11/10 score on this one… We shall see. Speaking of film reviews, pretty soon I will be dropping my thoughts on “Drive-Away Dolls,” “Bob Marley: One Love,” and “Dune Part Two.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Lisa Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Diablo Cody script? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Argylle (2024): I Lost One of My Nine Lives Watching Matthew Vaughn’s Latest Spy Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Argylle” is directed by Matthew Vaughn and stars Henry Cavill (Man of Steel, Mission: Impossible – Fallout), Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, Jurassic World), Sam Rockwell (The Bad Guys, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Bryan Cranston (Malcom in the Middle, Breaking Bad), Catherine O’Hara (Schitt’s Creek, Beetlejuice), Sofia Boutella (Atomic Blonde, The Mummy), Dua Lipa (Barbie), Ariana DeBose (West Side Story, Wish), with John Cena (Peacemaker, Blockers), and Samuel L. Jackson (Kingsman: The Secret Service, The Avengers). This film centers around a notable spy novelist named Elly Conway who finds out the events she happens to be writing in her next book are similar to those that are playing out in front of her.

I have not seen all of Matthew Vaughn’s work, but I am a fan of the “Kingsman” movies. Particularly “Kingsman: The Secret Service.” I have nothing against the second one. I had fun with “The Golden Circle” even though I think there are one or two moments I would rather have not sat through. Elton John alone was worth the price of admission for me. But I would rather honestly forget about Vaughn’s latest feature film, “The King’s Man,” a prequel to those two other movies. If you asked me what the heck happened in that last movie, I honestly would not be able to tell you. I was immensely bored with it and I cannot believe it even got made.

Nevertheless, I was looking forward to “Argylle.” Vaughn’s been on a bit of a downward trend lately, but I figured a fresh idea could give him a boost. You have new characters, a fresh story, but you also have some of Vaughn’s directorial trademarks making a comeback. “Kingsman: The Secret Service” definitely has a flashy, glitzy, in your face style, but it does not mean the movie lacks a good story to back it up. The good news about “Argylle” is that if you like Matthew Vaughn’s style, you will find it here. The bad news, the story ends up falling flat on its face.

I will be fair though. The story is not all bad. If anything, the first act of the film is easily my favorite part. It is the part where I had the most fun, emitted the most laughs, and not once was I ever taken out of it. I like how they handled Elly Conway’s mannerisms and point of view throughout between how she visualizes her stories, how she puts one thing and another together, and there is also a neat first-person perspective shot gimmick that comes into play. I like those techniques. There is also some good action. There is a fight on a train that is nothing short of a thrill ride. It also introduces us to my favorite character in the film, Aidan, played by Sam Rockwell. I have not seen everything Rockwell has done, but one of my favorite works of his is his performance in “The Way Way Back,” a coming of age comedy where he plays a waterpark employee. Having seen “Argylle,” his mannerisms here reminded me of how he executed his more comedic lines in “The Way Way Back.” He is very much a scene stealer and while it is in the trailer, the way he utters, “I love this book!”, got a genuine laugh out of me in the film.

Unfortunately, once the first act concludes, the whole movie enters this spiral of madness that almost gave yours truly a headache. I saw the film in IMAX, and while I love the IMAX experience, I must say that this one was on the verge of breaking me. It was almost too loud, too zany, and too rambunctious. I love when a story keeps you guessing, when it is full of twists and turns, but there is a sense of novelty that is lost once we find out where the movie is taking its characters. The movie is twisty. No doubt about it. A tagline for the film is “FROM THE TWISTED MIND OF MATTHEW VAUGHN.” But the movie throws so much at you all at once that is overwhelming. It is like sitting through ten AP classes at once and being forced to digest those subjects at the same time! I could only take so many notes! Yeah, there are elements to this charade that stick the landing, but there are plenty of others that leave a bit to be desired.

Also, if I have to be real, while the movie has great action in the beginning, I felt it became too much to handle by the end. Going back to “Kingsman,” one of the reasons why I find “The Secret Service” to be a better movie than “The Golden Circle” is because “The Secret Service” had action sequences that appeared to consistently exist in their own reality. They were ridiculous, but they were fun. “The Golden Circle” still has good action, but there are moments where the movie tends to jump the shark that lack a sense of heightened realism. It’s almost as if they broke some sort of rulebook. By the end of this film, “Argylle” felt more akin to “The Golden Circle” than “The Secret Service.” Yeah, there were a couple stylistic moments that pop, but there are others that are too flashy and do not emit much emotion.

There is a moment at the end of the film where it basically pulls a “Batman & Robin.” Unfortunately, as far as I can recall, there is not a single ice pun in the entire film. That’s not cool at all. But what I mean is, if you remember “Batman & Robin,” there is a moment that the titular characters conveniently emit ice skates from their boots to take down some baddies. There is a moment in “Argylle” that instantly triggered a memory of that, and how stupid that instance truly is. There is something involving skates in “Argylle” that is so played up, so over the top, so ridiculous, that it had me shrugging angrily in the middle of the theater! I was dumbfounded by this! How is this convincing?! You kind of have to see it yourself to fully embrace and grasp the feeling I got as soon as it came up. I wanted to roll my eyes.

Unfortunately, “Argylle” basically feels like an adolescent girl’s cringeworthy spy fantasy brought to life, but they gave the keys to Matthew Vaughn to tidy up the writing and make a $200 million movie out of it. It’s flashy, it’s shiny, and everything is all over the place. There’s cats! There’s good-looking men like Henry Cavill and John Cena! There is a kind-hearted, but somewhat shy woman in the center of it all! But unfortunately, those elements do not come together to make a neat package. The film kind of reminded me of Guy Ritchie’s “The Gentlemen,” which from a filmmaking perspective, looks nice, but I cannot say I appreciated the story.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, if you want a fun spy movie with Matthew Vaughn, watch “Kingsman: The Secret Service!” In fact, here is another thing that movie does better! Let’s talk about animal companions! Remember how in “Kingsman: The Secret Service” all the spies had to have a dog alongside them? The way they went about that story tactic was essential and delivered plenty of emotion to everyone’s journey in the film. “Argylle” makes it clear that our character is a cat lady, but when it comes to the cat itself, it was almost like watching a Disney animated film trying to utilize its most merchandisable character to the point where the film essentially becomes a commercial. For the record, I am not much of a cat person. So you could say I am biased in my assessment here. But I will also remind you that I am the furthest thing from a dog person! I am even allergic to dogs! Despite that, I can say that “Kingsman: The Secret Service” does a significantly better job at utilizing its animal companion than “Argylle” does in spades. If you want me to be real about “Argylle,” when it comes to fare prominently featuring cat characters, this is not as catastrophic as 2019’s “Cats.” But, this movie certainly had me angrily hissing by the time it was over.

In the end, “Argylle” is just plain bad. This movie has so much gloss and glamour to the point where they just put a bunch of people on sets and forgot to make a movie. I like the cast. Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, Catherine O’Hara, Samuel L. Jackson. These are all big names. And I imagine much like some recent action fare on Netflix such the intolerable “Red Notice,” this could factor into why the film has a $200 million price tag. Honestly, for all I know, Apple is a great streaming service. I have never used it to watch a show. But I have heard titles like “Ted Lasso” and “For All Mankind” are worth seeking out. But their movies are for the most part, forgettable. The one exception was “CODA,” which despite some cliches, was one of the most emotionally powerful movies I have seen in the past couple years. It was perfect. But from “Killers of the Flower Moon” to “Napoleon” and now this hot mess, Apple needs to get their ducks in a row and unleash a good movie. If you know me in real life, you know that I use an Android phone. I use Windows computers. I stream most of my music through YouTube. To get me to buy or invest my time in an Apple electronic would be like getting Howie Mandel to shake my hand. It would be nearly impossible. I wonder if the same fate could be coming to Apple’s movies if they continue to be this sloppily executed and poorly contrived. I am going to give “Argylle” a 3/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “American Fiction!” I have seen so many titles in 2023, but this was not one of them. I had to wait until this year to watch it. But I will have my review up very soon! By the way, I will not give away my final score on the film, but let’s just say that it has already been nominated for a couple Jack Awards! Which leads me to say…

THE JACK AWARDS ARE NEXT SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25th! If you have not already done so, cast your vote now for this year’s Best Picture! Hope you tune in! Be there or be square! 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 “Argylle?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Matthew Vaughn movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!