“Eden” is directed by Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13) and stars Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald), Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049, Knives Out), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Fantastic Four: First Steps), Sydney Sweeney (Euphoria, Anyone But You), Daniel Brühl (The Zookeeper’s Wife, The King’s Man), Felix Kammerer (All Quiet on the Western Front, All the Light We Cannot See), Toby Wallace (The Society, Pistol), and Richard Roxborough (Prosper, Moulin Rouge!). This survival film is inspired by true events and is about a group of people who hope to start a new life on an island, only to find that their greatest threat is each other.
Ron Howard is one of the most storied figures in Hollywood, from his humble beginnings as an actor on projects like “The Andy Griffith Show, “Happy Days,” and “American Graffiti,” to directing cinematic staples like “Apollo 13” and “A Beautiful Mind.” My question is, where is the hype for “Eden?” That is a serious question. After all, Ron Howard has a prolific resume, the stars of the film are well known, and it is based on a true story.
Instead of there being one answer as to why the hype for “Eden” feels relatively low, I would speculate that it comes down to multiple factors. Part of it could be due to Ron Howard’s more prominent projects being behind him. Also, this is from a lesser known studio, so it could not quite get as big of a push as it could have. And like the commercials or not, one of this film’s stars, Sydney Sweeney, has entered some recent controversy through her ad campaign for American Eagle.
We live in crazy times. Who knew we’d live in an era where a Ron Howard film did not sound like a big deal? Granted, I have heard about the making of this film through the internet. But I still wonder how many people have done the same. You also have Jude Law playing a lead role. He is just a small part of this movie’s talented ensemble, because you have three of the most prolific and picturesque actresses all in the same movie. One includes Sydney Sweeney as Margaret Wittner. While she may not have much to offer on the surface, Sweeney plays a surprisingly layered character. I ended up feeling bad for her in ways I did not expect. Ana de Armas is also a standout as Baroness Eloise Bosquet de Wagner Wehrhorn, an over the top actor who lives like every day is a cinematic adventure. Vanessa Kirby is also in the film as Dore Strauch. While she is not my favorite character in the film, she has a commanding presence and owns every line she is given. Every time she is on screen I cannot help but be immersed into each scene with her.
The film has a respectable cast. If I told you Jude Law and Vanessa Kirby were in this film, I would barely scratch the surface for how star-studded this movie is. For the most part, the cast is used wisely, but I will not lie, there are parts of this film that feel surprisingly staged. Granted, like most movies, just about everything here is written on a page. Of course it is staged. But when I watch certain films, there is sometimes an authenticity to a character’s performance that makes the experience riveting. While I find “Manchester by the Sea” to be a smidge overrated, I will not deny that the characters in that film came off as raw due to each actor playing their part to the best of their ability. On top of that, the film’s director did their job by unleashing the best vision they can. I am not an actor, although I have done acting in various short films, and sometimes the performances in “Eden” feel like they are made for a stageplay rather than a movie.
The performances could have been toned down a little. This is especially true for Ana de Armas. Yes, I did say she is a standout, but there are select lines where I thought I was watching someone who was trying too hard. Her performance is definitely not an easy one to capture. But at times I watched Ana de Armas and saw her as more of a villain figure on a modern reality competition like “Survivor” rather than a movie based on true events set sometime in the 20th century. Granted, the movie is set with a group of people alone on an island, so of course it is like a reality competition. At times, the cast does a good job with their material, but there is that occasional moment where it feels like the actor thinks they are in a completely different movie than their co-star.
“Eden” is not the year’s most memorable film, but it is one that kept me consistently engaged. It is a film where I liked getting to know the characters, their personalities, and their quirks. At one moment I would be watching a zany business opportunist. Then in another, I am watching a hermit writer trying to figure out what it means to be human. The film weaves in several stories at once, and for the most part, it flows naturally. Some portions of the plot are better than others, but it is hard to find a dull moment throughout the film. In fact, the story flies at a smooth pace. Prior to buying my ticket for this film, I was not aware of the tales it bases itself upon, but it makes for a fascinating narrative. There is only one scene that comes to mind that I found rather disturbing, but the final product does not quite go too over the top when it comes to gore and violence. This is not an easy watch, but it could definitely be more terrifying.
If I have anything else to say, this movie makes me wonder if Sydney Sweeney is going to be typecast sometime in the future. Between this film and “Immaculate,” Sweeney seems to be the current favorite for playing characters who deal with unique pregnancies. She is not horrible in either film, but nevertheless…
In the end, “Eden” is not a bad little movie, but it is one that does not have a lot of standout elements. On paper, to call this film intriguing would be an understatement between its cast, crew, and plot. But it is far from the best movie of the year. I cannot speak for every actor in this film, but a couple of the film’s big stars were also in a couple films that came out earlier this year, and I would prefer to watch those a second time over this one. Ana de Armas is much more convincing as an action star in “Ballerina,” and Vanessa Kirby plays a large role in Marvel’s exceptional “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.” I may be biased because I dig my action movies, but I think those films did a much better job at accomplishing their respective goals compared to “Eden.” I cannot wait to watch those films again. They have replay value. I cannot say the same is true with “Eden.” Maybe if I find it on cable I will put it on, but I do not see myself buying the Blu-ray. That is if it is even coming out on Blu-ray at this point. I am going to give “Eden” a 6/10.
“Eden” 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 “Splitsville!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Long Walk,” “A Big Bold Beautiful Journey,” “Him,” “Eleanor the Great,” and “The Lost Bus.” 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 “Eden?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Ron Howard movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is directed by Matt Shakman (WandaVision, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and stars Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Andor, The Bear), Joseph Quinn (A Quiet Place: Day One, Stranger Things), Julia Garner (Wolf Man, Ozark), Sarah Niles (Catastrophe, Ted Lasso), Mark Gatiss (Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One, The Father), Natasha Lyonne (American Pie, Poker Face), Paul Walter Hauser (The Luckiest Man in America, Inside Out 2), and Ralph Ineson (The Witch, Nosferatu). This film is the latest entry to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and centers around a family of superheroes who must defend earth from the space God Galactus.
This movie felt like a long time coming. Remember that sizzle reel Marvel had promoting all the movies coming out in the 2020s, trying to get people back to the cinema following the closures prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic? If you did not see it, I highly recommend checking it out, it is perfectly edited. But if you have seen it, you may recall at the end came this giant “4,” letting fans know that a Marvel Studios attempt at “Fantastic Four” was finally on its way. Only question was, when would we actually see this film come to life? The answer, long before Mahershala Ali gets his own “Blade” movie. That said, while the idea of a Marvel Studios-produced “Fantastic Four” was intriguing, the property comes with some baggage that has likely lowered expectations for future projects.
“Fantastic Four” is one of Marvel’s most celebrated franchises, and much like “Spider-Man,” the property has been adapted for the big screen multiple times. Although unlike “Spider-Man,” “Fantastic Four” has never been a surefire hit. Sure, some people have nostalgia for the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies, but overall, they do not have the best track record critically. Having seen them, I cannot exactly say those films are good myself. The 2015 film, which some dub as “Fant4stic,” is not the worst comic book movie I have ever seen, but it is undoubtedly soulless and reeks of corporate desperation. On a positive note, if you can call it that, at least that film got released…
…Unlike that discarded project from 1994.
Now that the Walt Disney Company, and therefore Marvel Studios, maintains the rights to the “Fantastic Four” property, I was curious to see what Kevin Feige and crew were going to do with it. This is where “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” comes in. While not everyone appears to agree with me, I love the film’s marketing. The film promises a retro-futuristic ride with a family trying to save their world. I was hoping the movie would be as epic as its trailers had me assume it would be, and I am glad to report it most certainly is.
One thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is both a blessing and a curse is that most of the movies feel the same as the next. This results in a tonal consistency from one project to the next. But it also sometimes leaves little room for variety and outside the box thinking. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” has some familiarities from Marvel’s other projects, but it comes off as one of the most individualistic entries to the MCU. It sometimes has a “Guardians of the Galaxy” feel due to the film taking place in space, but “Fantastic Four” ultimately feels like its own movie because it is set in a universe outside most of Marvel’s projects. As an added benefit, the film lessens the need for homework or to connect itself to other properties or characters.
Speaking of that “Guardians of the Galaxy” vibe, the film’s space scenes are visually awe-inspiring and full of color. Although whereas “Guardians of the Galaxy” reminds me a bit of “Star Wars,” there are ways that “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” reminds me more of “Star Trek.” The sets sometimes feel like something out of Gene Roddenberry’s mind. Compared to “Guardians,” “Fantastic Four” feels less action-centered. Plus, the film carries this vibe of setting the stage for tomorrow. Much like DC’s “Superman,” “Fantastic Four” maintains a sense of hope. It leans into the idea of persevering even through the impossible. It celebrates brawn, but also brains. The film at one point leans into this seemingly impossible plan on Reed Richards’ mind, all in the hope of saving mankind. If this film were set on Earth-616, which seems to have quite a bit in common with our own universe, I would probably be more critical of Richards’ plan. But the movie is instead set on Earth 828, which likely opens the doors for more creativity and imagination. Therefore, as silly as Richards’ plan sounds, I was so sucked into this film that part of me was going along for the ride.
Speaking of Reed Richards, Pedro Pascal is in way too many projects! …Is what I might say if he did not do a good job as this film’s lead. Pascal has been busy lately between this film, “Eddington,” “Materialists,” among other projects. But there is a reason why he is getting so much work. He never fails to impress. First off, I am super happy to see Pascal redeem himself in the comic book movie sub-genre after the colossal disappointment that is “Wonder Woman 1984.” Second, Pascal is charming as Mister Fantastic. He is never over the top, but I bought into Pascal’s constant drive, and sometimes his disappointment. There is a scene in the middle of the film where Richards faces a large crowd and lets out his brutally honest thoughts, and I could truly feel his pain with each word that came out of his mouth.
While not my favorite character in the film, its heart and soul for me is Sue Storm, or the Invisible Woman. I liked Vanessa Kirby leading up to “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” but this might be the first film where I can say I truly love her. Kirby gives such a powerful performance. I got a sense that she wants what is best for other people, especially her family. I also like how the film utilizes her powers, even if the action in this movie is minimal. More on that in a second.
Joseph Quinn puts on a good portrayal of Johnny Storm. Whereas Reed and Sue feel grounded, Johnny’s placement in the film shows him to be upbeat and hyperactive. Of the family, he comes off as the comic relief. Throughout the film I also could not help but notice Joseph Quinn and think he looked like a younger Chris Evans. Of course, if you know your Marvel history, Evans played Johnny Storm in the 2000s “Fantastic Four” movies. As for which performance is better, Quinn excels by miles, perhaps unfairly, given how he had much better material to work with as opposed to having every other line out of his mouth showcase his womanizing tendencies.
I would have to watch the film a second time to confirm how I really feel, but I think the Thing might be my favorite hero in the film. Ebon-Moss Bachrach unleashes a heap of charisma as one giant pile of CGI rocks. The special effects look pristine and there is not a moment where they took me out of the movie. Ultimately, if I had to choose one member of the Fantastic Four to meet for lunch somewhere, it would easily be The Thing. Ben Grimm is a genuinely likable guy who appears to be great with children. He has fun with everything that comes with his superhero life.
The action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is really good, but if you are looking for nonstop, chaotic sequences, this is where “Superman” will serve you better. When it comes to the action in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” what we get is great, but it left me wanting more. The best thing I can say about the action is that each sequence had a logical and meaningful place in the story. Never once did I feel that I was watching an action sequence that was overdone just for the sake of showing off flashy effects.
On that note, while some Marvel projects as of late have some problematic special effects, I cannot think of one scene in “The Fanatastic Four: First Steps” where the effects were bad. I thought everything looked polished and maintained a sense of verisimilitude.
The climax in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” undoubtedly comes with a sense of finality, but it also in a sense feels much smaller than some of the other films in the MCU. Despite my appreciation for the film unveiling Reed Richards’ smarts, I wish we could have gotten a tiny bit more of a showcase of his superpowers. I do not hate the climax, but I could understand people watching it and thinking “Man, that was short,” or, “Wow, that could have used more sparkle.” But for me, I appreciated it because it put the characters first. You have Galactus with an easy to understand motivation. Then you also have a family of superheroes thinking on their feet, while trying to protect the planet and their circle.
Speaking of Galactus, he looks terrific. He is quite literally a massive improvement over whatever the heck the crew behind “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” conjured up. Unlike that film, Galactus is a tall space god, not a giant cloud. And his motivation is nothing more than to consume worlds. Sometimes you do not need to go higher than that. The film makes such a simple idea so compelling. Ralph Ineson does a good job with the role.
On that note, speaking of villains, I thought Julia Garner was well cast as the Silver Surfer. To my surprise, the film does such a marvelous job at humanizing her. I did not know what to expect from the trailers. It did not show a ton of her character, but I was pleasantly delighted to see how the movie handles her. Also, props to the effects team for bringing her to life. She looks attractively glossy but also menacing when she needs to be.
Part of why I was so sucked into this movie was its narrative. Also like “Superman,” “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” skips over the origin story. The film does explain it, but it does not spend much time showing it. What the film is really about is the team, most especially Reed Richards and Sue Storm, preparing for the birth of their child. Only thing is, there is a whole galactic event that could prevent such a thing from going smoothly. The characters are presented with an incredible dilemma that seems tough to take in once it is given to them. However, it is one that depending on what choice is made, other people could interpret as self-centered. I love this dilemma. It kind of reminds me of that scene in “Spider-Man” where the title character is faced with a choice to save Mary Jane or the people onboard the Roosevelt Island tram, but this stakes here are so much higher. There are many more lives that these characters have to worry about. For those not in the know I will not spoil how this dilemma gets resolved, but I imagine some of you could probably predict how it unfolds.
For years, I thought Marvel ate DC for breakfast when it comes to their film slate. This is evident in so many regards including story, characters, humor, tonal consistency, and world-building. But while select titles like “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Endgame” have moved me with their original scores, DC has always slayed when it comes to its music. I am not the biggest fan of “Wonder Woman 1984,” but I play that film’s tracks on a highly consistent basis. That said, Michael Giacchino may have delivered the best score in a Marvel Studios film, not to mention a contender for my favorite score of the decade so far.
As mentioned before, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” heavily dives into the realm of retro-futurism, and the music compliments that vibe to perfection. By itself, it is an epic superhero theme. When you break it down even further, it combines the magnificence of old school orchestras but every other millisecond you will hear a sound that evokes a sense of moving forward. As I hear this film’s main theme, I both imagine myself wanting to hear it at Carnegie Hall while also thinking about what it would be like to get down to it at the club. This is my favorite Michael Giacchino score since “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” and that says something considering how boisterously epic that music gets at times, especially towards the climax.
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” might be my favorite comic book movie of the year. Is it a perfect film? No. If anything, I think it would benefit from a smidge more action. That said, I have no problem with the action scenes we have. Each one is essential to the story and feels special. Nothing feels overdone. Even the big final fight feels smaller for Marvel standards, but that does not mean it is bad. The fight successfully ties up loose ends established throughout the film, and finishes in a fashion that leaves me more than satisfied. Much like “Thunderbolts*,” another Marvel title released earlier this year, “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is a film that I will remember fondly because of how well utilized its main ensemble turned out to be. If the characters do not work, then the movie does not work. Thankfully, the characters are phenomenally written and truly feel like a family.
By the way, the film contains two scenes during the credits. The second one is more of a “fun scene.” It does not really add much to the film other than referencing something that was highlighted earlier. You will not miss much if you skip it. But make it your mission to stay in your seat for the first one. DO NOT get up when the credits roll. If you are at risk of being late for your table at Seasons 52, then so be it! Do not miss the mid-credits scene!
In the end, I cannot wait to watch “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” a second time. This film is legitimately some of the most fun I have had at the movies this year. It is a film that never lets its characters escape from conflict. Every single scene had me engaged. While his motivation is not complicated, Galactus quite literally stands tall with such a commanding screen presence. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is an exceptional start to phase 6, and it only has me beaming for whatever Marvel has up its sleeves next. It is by far the best “Fantastic Four” movie without “Incredibles” in the title. I am going to give “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” an 8/10.
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Bad Guys 2!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my reviews for “Smurfs,” “Together,” “Oh, Hi!,” “Weapons,” “Freakier Friday,” and “Nobody 2.” 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 Fantastic Four: First Steps?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on the other “Fantastic Four” movies we have gotten? Do you have a favorite “Fantastic Four” movie? I am willing to bet most people would agree that this latest one is the best of the bunch, but it is the Internet. Crazy things can happen. Leave your comments down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Napoleon” is directed by Ridley Scott (The Last Duel, House of Gucci) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Joker), Vanessa Kirby (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, The Crown), Tahar Rahim (A Prophet, The Mauritanian), and Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding, An Ideal Husband). This film is about the rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, diving into many aspects that define the individual, in addition to his relationship with his wife, Josephine.
I was looking forward to “Napoleon” as I am a fan of Ridley Scott. The trailers undoubtedly looked epic and it delivered a similar vibe to another historical epic Scott mastered in his time of making it, “Gladiator.” And of course, with a prominent, talented thespian like Joaquin Phoenix at the forefront, I thought we could be in for something special. Unfortunately, when the reviews started coming out for this film, that is when I decided to lower my expectations, as it seemed to stray away from historical accuracy. But as someone who looks for entertainment in his movies, I can live with a little bending of history as long as you can make a good movie out of it so I tried not to get too concerned. Unfortunately, I walked out of “Napoleon” almost half asleep. And that is really weird to say because one of the positives I have about this movie is the immersive sound mix. It is an enormous aid during the battle scenes. As much as I love Ridley Scott, I think this film is quite a dud.
This film feels rushed, and yet, it somehow managed to bore me with a two and a half hour runtime. I can sit through a two and a half hour movie. Some of my favorite movies are longer than that. But this was painful. I think the one redeeming quality of this movie was watching the uncomfortable relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. But when I say that is a redeeming quality, I must also note that it is like watching a car crash at times. There are certain moments between these two that are intriguing, but there are others where the intrigue comes in, but in a such a haphazard manner that I would feel as if I am doing myself a disservice if I look away. Now to be fair, the chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby is admirable in regards to how their characters are written and performed.
As we age, there is a tendency that people define themselves over who they surround themselves with, their legacy, how things will be carried on after they’re gone. And when it comes to displaying Napoleon’s desire to keep things afloat and continue his legacy to the next generation, these traits are emitted with passion on Joaquin Phoenix’s part. My favorite parts of the movie, or at least the ones I cannot stop thinking about, all involve Napoleon’s burning desire to have a child. I think the way the movie handles this segment of the story is surprisingly decent, even if it does get a little over the top.
Speaking of over the top, that is one of my biggest negatives of the film. Phoenix and Kirby shine in their individual roles, but there are plenty of other individuals on screen, and their acting ability has me questioning whether I was actually watching something from a director as renowned as Scott. There are select lines from certain characters that feel like they came out of a high school TV production class. Sometimes those lines are delivered with passion, but they are delivered with a certain passion that would probably be best used in an animation or a comedy as opposed to a somewhat grounded drama. In fact, the movie sort of crosses a line at times into comedy that I have no idea if it was actually intended. There are select scenes that play out in a much funnier manner than I would have imagined them. It almost spirals into a “so bad it’s good” territory, which is a phrase I was not expecting to use when reviewing a Ridley Scott movie.
Even with my issues, I must admit, “Napoleon,” like many of Ridley Scott’s films, is easy on the eyes. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, like usual, is beautiful, even if some of the shots feel a tad rushed in the final edit. The locations are excellent, fit their scenes, and bring life to the production. The production design from one of Scott’s regulars, Arthur Max, is outstanding. The costumes have notable detail. The film is a crisp step back in time. But just because “Napoleon” nails its style, does not mean the same can be said for its substance.
I was bored immensely with the film’s pacing, its story. Everything. There are several moments where I kept asking myself if the movie was over. And the worst part is knowing that this is not a complete product. This is just a lackluster Cliffs Notes edition of a larger tale, because it has been revealed that this production will have a four hour extended version. I kind of get why you would not want to release a four hour movie in theaters, but I would sit through one if I had the time if it meant the pace and story would bring more appeal. Here, it kind of feels rushed and it lacking in engagement.
When it comes to my time studying history, I was off and on as a student. In my opinion, “Napoleon” feels like reading a history textbook. And I do not use that comparison lightly. Basically this whole movie is one giant chapter or unit that I have to go through, and I am passively taking it all in to the best of my ability due to of my lack of interest. I cannot tell you everything that happened in the movie, so if you were to hand me a quiz I would probably not do so hot. And much like reading a textbook, I failed to find any entertainment value in what was in front of me. If I wanted Ridley Scott to entertain me with a slice of history, I will just go back and watch “Gladiator.” I will go back and watch “The Last Duel.” “Napoleon” just doesn’t do it for me. And I think a big part of it is because of how much the movie dives into. It feels like we are hopping from one place in time to another lickety split. With a movie like “The Last Duel,” one of my new favorites from Ridley Scott, there is a central idea the characters have to deal with that remains consistent. In fact, we see it play out a few times in different ways, which makes for a compelling narrative. The film is digestible despite being drawn out. So much happens in “Napoleon” that I would almost argue you need a longer runtime to actually appreciate it. Maybe this would be a good miniseries, but I think the spectacle aspect that is best witnessed in a cinema is probably what could have kept it from going in that direction. And if you are asking, no, I do not have plans to check out the extended cut of this movie. I have better things to do with my time.
In the end, “Napoleon” is a massive disappointment. This movie takes one of the most talked about historical figures of all time and wastes him in a dull, uninteresting, downtrodden mess that nearly put me to sleep. It is much less a story than it is a series of events that failed to capture my interest. The only real shining spot of the film are the performances given by Phoenix and Kirby as Napoleon and Josephine respectively. In fact, part of me wanted to see more of the Josephine character, I feel like she at times offered a more compelling presence than Napoleon did. I have seen movies like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” handle Napoleon Bonaparte from a much more comedic angle. Somehow I continue to think about those attempts at showcasing the character in a much more positive light than I do with this two and a half hour historical so-called “epic.” Yes, it’s technically glorious. You know what was also technically glorious? “Jupiter Ascending!” But you don’t see me raving about the characters of that movie every now and again. I am going to give “Napoleon” a 4/10.
“Napoleon” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of my Ridley Scott movie reviews, I just did a themed month called “Ridley Scottober” where I discuss four Ridley Scott films in depth. That said, feel free to check out my reviews for “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” “All the Money in the World,” and “Blade Runner.” My next review is going to be for “Godzilla Minus One,” and boy, I cannot wait to share this one with you all. But, I am going to have to wait. Because my next post is going to be an update on Blu-ray Movie Collection! Stay tuned! If you want to see this, and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Napoleon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie about a historical figure? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is directed by Christopher McQuarrie (Jack Reacher, The Way of the Gun) and stars Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Risky Business), Hayley Atwell (Agent Carter, The Duchess), Ving Rhames (Lilo & Stitch, Pulp Fiction), Simon Pegg (Ready Player One, Run Fatboy Run), Rebecca Ferguson (Dune, Reminiscence), Vanessa Kirby (Pieces of a Woman, Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw), Esai Morales (Resurrection Blvd., Bad Boys), Pom Klementieff (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Oldboy), Mariela Garriga (Bloodline, Nightmare Cinema), and Henry Czerny (Ready or Not, Revenge). This film is the seventh installment of the ongoing “Mission: Impossible” movie franchise based on the hit television series of the same name. In this latest installment, Ethan Hunt and crew must track down a dangerous weapon before it is too late.
The “Mission: Impossible” franchise is, in some ways, the definition of irony. Because there is a general saying that a movie’s sequel is not usually as good as the original. If “Mission: Impossible” stopped at two movies that would be true, because I liked the first film quite a bit, but felt a significant dip in quality in John Woo’s “Mission: Impossible II.” Thankfully, “Mission: Impossible III” was better. Not perfect, but J.J. Abrams at least did enough to thwart the franchise in the right direction. “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” directed by Brad Bird, not only ended up being really good, but revitalized the franchise. I still think about the scene set around the Dubai Tower on a regular basis. Then we get “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” directed by Christopher McQuarrie, which much like its predecessor, had incredible action sequences and stuntwork that define Tom Cruise’s career. That would have been my favorite “Mission: Impossible” movie, had it not been for the fact that Cruise and McQuarrie reunited to make the last “Mission: Impossible,” specifically “Fallout.” That film is the peak of what I consider to be one of the greatest action franchises. It was my favorite film of 2018, and I would put it right next to “Risky Business” as my favorite film starring Tom Cruise. The film is simple in plot, but has jaw-dropping action, likable characters, and a bone-chilling climax to back it up. It is everything a modern action movie should be.
This is also part of why I was excited for “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” which I put my as my #2 for my top 10 most anticipated movies of 2023. This franchise has a special talent. Specifically, a talent where almost each film ends up surpassing its predecessor. With how good “Fallout” was, this seventh installment had big shoes to fill.
Time for some good news and bad news. Bad news, the streak of these sequels surpassing their predecessors has ended. I think “Fallout” is a better film than “Dead Reckoning Part One.” Good news, “Dead Reckoning Part One” is all around, a great time at the movies. It contains the essentials I am used to seeing in these films between the quick pace, the character moments, the fun action sequences, and everything in between. If you are looking for summer blockbuster thrills, look no further. This film is an excellent outing for everyone involved, and it will make an excellent outing for you once you step outside your home and into the theater.
One of the reasons I, and I imagine many others, ended up looking forward to “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is because it is a continuation of Tom Cruise pulling off death-defying stunts. In fact, much of the marketing pushes the moment where Ethan maneuvers a motorcycle off a cliff and shortly thereafter removes himself from said motorcycle, allowing himself to fall through the air like an absolute moron. I can tell you, that stunt alone is worth the price of admission. When that scene came up in my auditorium, I could tell just about everyone felt a shiver through their body.
But what if I told you that is not even the most intense thing this movie has to offer? Because there are a couple of other scenes that continue to stand out to me. First off, there is a chase through Venice that will go down as not only one of my favorite sequences in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, but also as one of the funniest action scenes I have ever watched in the history of cinema. I do not think I laughed this hard watching action either since “The Suicide Squad” or “Free Guy.” One of those two movies. When I say this action scene is funny, I mean it. There are a lot of visuals that caught me off guard in the best possible way. Although I must say, I apologize to the company because their car is prominently featured in said sequence, I do not think I will be buying a Fiat anytime soon. If there was any product placement involved, I think this action sequence basically told me to not spend my money on one of those cars. I will stick with my Ford for now.
Another standout sequence in “Dead Reckoning Part One” is set further into the movie, specifically on a train. First of all, the interior of the train, which was assembled for this movie from scratch, is stunningly designed. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I would consider putting this film amongst the Production Design nominations for how solid the inside of that train looks. Secondly, this movie may have the greatest train scene since “Spider-Man 2,” which is an impeccably high standard to match. But the reason why this train sequence will stick with me for a long time is because it does what “Mission: Impossible” does best. It does not only put our characters in danger from a story perspective, but as I watch the sequence, I am increasingly worried for their physical safety. Both the characters and the actors playing them. Anyone can do a train sequence in a film if they wanted to. I have seen boring train scenes before, just go watch “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” But this film does it in such a way that had me wondering how the heck anyone could make it out alive. Heck, there is a movie from last year called “Bullet Train,” and the train scene in “Dead Reckoning Part One” is arguably more thrilling than that entire movie. For the record, I liked “Bullet Train.” But my point stands.
If I had a problem with the film, it would be the opening scene. Sure, it is a homage to a respected title, “The Hunt for Red October,” but the dialogue during this scene honestly felt wooden. Maybe if I watch it again it would be better, but it felt more like a parody of “Mission: Impossible” rather than an actual “Mission: Impossible” movie. Which, quite frankly, is a dead on way to describe “Mission: Impossible II.” I said what I said. But other than that, there are not many flaws to point out about “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.” If there is one, maybe the A.I. was not as threatening as it could have been, but maybe the crew is saving the good stuff for part two. Staying on topic though, I think the antagonist, Gabriel (Esai Morales), is a bit of a step down for the franchise. Especially when compared to August Walker (Henry Cavill) from the previous installment.
On the note of multi-part efforts, despite having part one in the title, I will contend that “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” plays as a complete movie. It contains a full, concrete story. Sure, there are loose ends, but the main story ties itself up in a bow. It is a much better part one than what “Fast X” gave us a few months ago, which offered possibly the dumbest, most insultingly complicated cliffhanger in recent film. It did not feel like an end to a movie. It felt like the beginning of something much worse. I left “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” feeling satisfied with what I saw. Maybe I overhyped it a little, but it does not change the fact that it is a solid option for the big screen this summer.
Going back to “Fast X,” when it comes to the big spy movie franchises out right now, the “Fast & Furious” and “Mission: Impossible” franchises are the two that immediately come to mind. This movie manages to get something right that the “Fast & Furious” movies do not. Characterization. Sure, maybe every once in awhile it is soothing to hang out with the “family,” but those movies fail when it comes to getting me onboard with the characters due to a lack of stakes. Once again, this film reinstates the notion that I am worried for everyone’s safety. Part of it is because a lot of the stuff on screen is done for real, but they flesh out the characters and treat them more like people as opposed to big muscular bodies moving from one place to another. Grace (Hayley Atwell) is layered and has an intriguing mysteriousness to her throughout the film. Additionally, Paris (Pom Klementieff) is another new character that stands out and brings a lot to the table. There continues to be genuine chemistry between Cruise, Rhames, and Pegg as friends. When I left this film, one of the thoughts in my mind happened to be that I cannot wait to see “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part Two.” Not only to get back to a franchise that I adore, but to continue seeing cool characters like these. Here is hoping the upcoming sequel is a worthy entry to the franchise, much like this one.
In the end, if I had to rank the “Mission: Impossible” movies, “Dead Reckoning Part One” would not be my favorite, but it would be on the higher end. I would put it above “Ghost Protocol,” but I would put it below the last two. The more I think about it, I think I like it just a little more than the 1996 original, which is a great movie on its own. When it comes to pure summer action, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” delivers. It is exciting, thrilling, and I left the film satisfied, but still wanting to know what is next. While this may not make as much money as Tom Cruise’s last outing, “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” brings in some big guns of its own. I am going to give “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” an 8/10.
“Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Oppenheimer,” the brand new movie from my favorite filmmaker, Christopher Nolan. Also, I will soon be dropping reviews for “Haunted Mansion,” “The First Slam Dunk,” and “Barbie.” 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 “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Mission: Impossible” movie? Mine is “Fallout,” but I want to know yours! Comment below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 