Walt Disney

The Marvels (2023): A Terrific Trio Delivers in a Freaky Friday-ish MCU Outing

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Marvels” is directed by Nia DaCosta (Little Woods, Candyman) and stars Brie Larson (Room, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Teyonah Parris (If Beale Street Could Talk, Mad Men) Iman Vellani, Zawe Ashton (Velvet Buzzsaw, The Handmaid’s Tale), Gary Lewis (Joyeux Noël, Gangs of New York), Park Seo-joon (Kill Me, Heal Me, She was Pretty), Zenobia Shroff (The Big Sick, Soul), Mohan Kapur (Sadak 2, Hostages), Saagar Shaikh (Unfair & Ugly, Average Joe), and Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, The Incredibles). This film features three superheroines who must band together to save the universe while dealing with an entanglement in their powers.

If you told me a month after “Captain Marvel” came out that we would be getting a sequel within the next few years, I would have believed you. In addition to being one of the most prominent comic book movies with a female lead, serving an underrepresented demographic, the film did gangbusters at the box office, grossing over a billion dollars. Unfortunately, if you ask me, I honestly think “Captain Marvel” is one of the weakest of the MCU films, and I gave it a 4/10 in my original review. Looking back at the film, it shines whenever Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson share the screen together. But there are many other instances where it falters. I thought the way Larson’s character was directed and written could have been better. I thought the hero’s stoic nature made her less palatable than she could have been. And I hate saying that because when I look back at Larson’s previous work like “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and “Room,” she has legit acting chops. And for all I know, she fulfilled the requirements of her role, but she was not given her finest work here. The villain is somewhat forgettable. The movie’s structure is a bit of a choice. Goose the Cat got on my nerves by the end of the film, and speaking of that, the film, which serves as a prequel to events that happen later in the MCU, reveals a certain detail about Nick Fury. Given the greater context of the MCU, I really hate how they went about exposing this detail. It felt out of left field and borderline cringeworthy.

But since “Captain Marvel” came out, we saw the rise of Disney+, which has brought shows like “WandaVision” and “Ms. Marvel” to the small screen. The former show features a prominent story from Monica Rambeau, the daughter of Maria Rambeau who is notably featured in “Captain Marvel.” Meanwhile Ms. Marvel introduces the new hyperactive, young, titular character to the ongoing universe. Thankfully, when it comes to the Marvel Disney+ series this film chooses to interlink, it chooses my two absolute favorites. Honestly, all the rest, minus select episodes of “What If…?” pale in comparison. But if you want my two cents, this brings up my first, and most obvious critique when it comes to “The Marvels.” If you have not seen “Captain Marvel,” then maybe you’ll be okay. You can get a sense of who Captain Marvel, AKA Carol Danvers, is in the snap of a finger. The movie does an okay job interjecting the two other leads, but I think you are easily going to appreciate them more if you tune into the Disney+ shows. If you read some of my more recent MCU movie reviews, my most prominent critique is that this whole cinematic universe is increasingly feeling like homework. “Doctor Strange in the Multiverese of Madness” sometimes feels like a commercial for “WandaVision” a year after its release. There is a certain connection a couple characters have between “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” that is established in The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special.” The impact of that feels lessened knowing it comes from something comparatively smaller and timely. That said, the movie is still a banger, you should watch it.

“The Marvels” is honestly diving into a territory where the movies are taking advantage of as much Disney+ material as it can muster. If you did not see “WandaVision,” the impact of this movie would be lessened. If you did not see “Ms. Marvel,” I think there is still a lot to enjoy with the character, but maybe the impact would not be there as much. And with all these characters coming together in one picture, this is kind of what I feared would happen with the MCU. We would get to a point where the movies and Disney+ shows would be totally linked to a point where you almost cannot have one without the other. I enjoy the MCU, but this film reminds me of how much more fun this universe was when it was just about the next big event picture, and now with the TV shows, it comes off as a commodity to the point where there is too much. “The Marvels,” despite my enjoyment of it, feels like a mish mash. There is so much going on in such a short runtime.

But what saves the film in such a seismic manner just so happens to be the three leads themselves. Regardless of how much knowledge you had about any of them prior to watching this movie, I am willing to bet that if you watch this movie by itself as an introduction to these three characters, you will walk out having liked them. If anything, I think this film gives a much more likable portrayal of Captain Marvel than what we got in her 2019 film. She has a wider range of emotions while also maintaining her space goddess mentality she carried throughout her previous appearances. When it comes to Monica Rambeau, I think if I had to name the weakest character in the trio, it would be her. She appears to be given the least to do amongst the three, but she has a number of decent lines and standout moments on screen. Easily my favorite of the trio is Ms. Marvel, AKA Kamala Khan. A lot of that has to do with the infinite charm emitted by young actress Iman Vellani. Between the “Ms. Marvel” show and now this brand new movie, Vellani is perfectly cast in Ms. Marvel’s shoes. Vellani herself is a massive Marvel fangirl, and she very much interjects that into the personality of the Ms. Marvel character. If anything, Vellani reminds me of myself a little bit. She is dynamic, often upbeat, and often carries a smile even when the situation may seem dire. She spends a ton of the movie looking up to Captain Marvel as an idol and when she sees her in person, she almost comes off as if she is getting too close.

If this movie proves anything, it is that of the three main heroes in the trio, Ms. Marvel is easily the most fun to watch, and Marvel should honestly utilize Vellani’s talents as much as they can. She clearly enjoys playing the character. A lot of the stuff she is doing stands out amongst Marvel’s recent fare. And she is practically a scene stealer. Additionally, I love her family, particularly her parents. Both have tons of personality. For the screentime they have in this movie, they are used to their maximum potential.

Unfortunately though, the movie is not all rainbows and unicorns. In addition to the whole Marvel becoming homework thing that seems to increase in every other project, there is a scene in this film that feels entirely out of place. “The Marvels” is undoubtedly lighthearted. Especially when compared to other Marvel projects like “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” and “Eternals.” But there is a scene in this film that feels too light to the point where it feels like it is coming out of a goofy Disney animation. Without giving too much away, the main trio ends up going to a planet where we find out the inhabitants all communicate through song. The way this is done is about as close to a bad “SpongeBob SquarePants” episode that the MCU has gotten in its decade and a half of existing. I have spent much of this movie with my mouth open. Either because I was eating popcorn or laughing. I had my mouth open during this scene as well, but not for good reason. I was perplexed as to what was going on, if I was dreaming, and if this was even the same movie I was just watching moments earlier.

There is also another scene that is not as bad, but is still a lesser moment of the film that somewhat failed to emit the effect it was probably going for, and it involves a ton of cats. Now maybe if I was a cat person I would feel differently about this scene. Heck, I’m not even a dog person. I’m barely a people person. But as this scene was happening, my brain kind of turned itself off and back on again. I knew what was happening, but I was not able to get any reaction out of it. If I had to name a low point of the Marvels, particularly a low point that is still high enough to keep me from ripping my ears off my face, it would be the chaotic flerken scene. It might be a hit with some audiences, but it was not for me.

The beauty of the best Marvel movies is that even when there may be a ton of setup for what’s to come, the product in front of you feels like a delicious main course. Don’t get me wrong, “The Marvels” was enjoyable, but it feels like an overreliance of what came before while also setting up so much for what could come next. When I said this movie is so much going on in such a short runtime, I was not kidding. I do not mind a short movie, I also do not mind a long movie. But a movie works best when it evenly distributes its material for a best possible runtime that can keep me engaged. “The Marvels” kept me engaged the entire time, but it did so while going at a pace that felt almost equal to a disposable TikTok video.

When it comes to Marvel villains, they are all over the place by now. After all, with so many movies out at this point, you are going to have your high and low moments. When it comes to the Marvel villain rankings for me, this film’s antagonist, Dar-Benn, is around the middle to low tier. I thought Zawe Ashton does a decent job as the character. But if I have to pinpoint any noticeable flaws, I would say that some of her lines are cliche. She does not really do much to stand out similar to say Marvel’s last two villains, specifically Kang the Conqueror and the High Evolutionary. Both villains do a great job at making their presence known or establishing clear motivations that make them the character in the film I love to hate the most. Dar-Benn has her moments. She is fun to watch in action. The way they utilize a couple plot devices with this character is effective. To call her cookie cutter would be a tiny stretch, but she is probably going to be one of the MCU’s more forgettable villains we have gotten over the years. She is not offensive, but to call her anything beyond serviceable would be generous.

If Marvel, and the comic book movie sub-genre in general for that matter, has lacked something for many years, it is a set of prominent female-led films that are really good. Sure, the 2017 “Wonder Woman” movie was fantastic, and for some time, my favorite film in the DCEU. Yes, I enjoyed “Black Widow” and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” And yes, “Captain Marvel” made over a billion dollars, but I think this film does a better job at showcasing women superheroes in the forefront than that movie did. And that is highlighted by something I felt was lacking in “Captain Marvel,” emotion. Throughout my watch of “The Marvels,” I came to the conclusion that I was having a much better experience watching the leads. No disrespect to Samuel L. Jackson, I would honestly rather see Brie Larson next to Teyonah Parris and Iman Vellani for a bit longer if I could. And when it comes to the idea of emotion, Captain Marvel is more dynamic this time around than in her first MCU appearance. Additionally, the two supporting heroes add quite a bit to the table to keep me engaged. I think the movie, despite its flaws, works because it takes these three heroes and does a great job at fleshing them out. It dives heavily into their strengths, their weaknesses, their personalities. And that is something I kind of wanted to see out of Captain Marvel in her first outing in the MCU. Sure, we learn a bit about her backstory there, but I was more compelled by how her story is laid out in this film. And the material, whether it is better or worse than “Captain Marvel” honestly lends to a superior performance from Brie Larson herself. Maybe it is because she’s already played the character so she has had to time to adjust to the role, but I think she is better here than she was in “Captain Marvel.”

Part of what makes these three leads click is not just their interactions and how the movie utilizes their chemistry, which is as close to perfect as it can get to be honest. But the film’s driving concept for these three heroes lends itself to pure fun. I sometimes find myself fascinated with a “Freaky Friday”-esque concept. In the case of “The Marvels,” the characters do not quite switch bodies, but more or less switch places. In addition to being a clever idea, it also lends itself to a fun montage with the Beastie Boys song “Intergalactic” playing in the background.

In the end, “The Marvels” is sort of all over the place. But the positives heavily outweigh the negatives when I break everything down. If you asked me if I were to watch this movie sometime in the next year or so, I would not be opposed to it. I do not think it is the best superhero movie this year. If anything, it is one of the weaker ones, but I think it is still as entertaining as popcorn movies can get. It is hilarious, has great characters, and comes with a concept that is… (sigh) marvelously done. I think the film’s biggest weakness comes from the notion that the MCU itself has gotten so big. And personally, I would not have as much of a problem with that if Disney+ did not exist, but now that Marvel movies and TV shows are interlinked, I think it is only leading to extended convolution in the franchise. And while I may watch just about everything the franchise has to offer, the film relies on a bit that comes before it, and that could be a red flag for general audiences or less informed consumers. There are a couple gags that do not work, and I do think the villain is alright at best, but the terrific trio, and that is putting it lightly, of superheroines make this latest comic book movie worth the watch. I am going to give “The Marvels” a generously high 6/10.

I almost want to give two scores for “The Marvels.” Because if we are going for a pure fun factor, this movie would probably be an easy 7/10, but I also have to recognize that this movie works for me probably because I was exposed to much of what the MCU has to offer. The film sometimes relies on a couple movies and TV shows in its marketing and I think if you did not see those, this would be slightly harder to recommend. That said, I think you could still have a decent time with the movie. But there are a lot of other titles in the MCU that would be a better gateway to everything else. I took my dad to see this film, and while he missed out on “The Marvels,” he still liked what he saw. He did not have anything initially negative to say about it. Having talked with him since, we came to an agreement that this is not Marvel’s best work, but we both had a fun time.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Disney’s latest animated film, “Wish!” The film just hit theaters last week, and I will have my thoughts on it soon! Also coming soon, I will have reviews coming for “Next Goal Wins,” “The Holdovers,” and “Napoleon!” 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 Marvels?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Captain Marvel?” What about “WandaVision?” Did you check out “Ms. Marvel?” Let me know about your thoughts on those entries to the MCU! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Creator (2023): A Timely Sci-fi Story Featuring Heavy Inspiration from Numerous Predecessors

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Creator” is directed by Gareth Edwards (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Godzilla) and stars John David Washington (Tenet, Amsterdam), Gemma Chan (Eternals, Crazy Rich Asians), Ken Watanabe (Inception, The Last Samurai), Sturgill Simpson (Queen & Slim, The Hunt), and Allison Janey (Mom, I, Tonya). This film is set during a time where humanity and artificial intelligence are at war. The story shares what happens when one human soldier finds the robots’ secret weapon. A young child.

As a science fiction junkie, I feel like we have been spoiled over the past decade in regards to IP between “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Star Wars,” and depending on how the second film ends up doing months from now, “Dune.” Science fiction is easily my favorite genre in film. It can range all over the place in tone, atmosphere, and can sometimes be really thought-provoking. Going back to the “Star Wars” example, Gareth Edwards has honestly made my second favorite thing that has been done during the Disney “Star Wars” era, specifically “Rogue One.” I love how that movie manages to enhance a certain plot hole from the original, introduces a great story and concept, and unleashes an utterly likable antagonist in Director Krennic. Now, when it comes to the final product, it is hard to determine how much Edwards had to do with everything in it, but he handled that movie perfectly. It is easily a highlight of the “Star Wars” franchise. His “Godzilla” movie… Well, I guess it is fine. Not perfect, but I thought the climax was worth watching.

But if you look at Gareth Edwards’s resume in recent years, you would notice that he, like some other directors, has descended deep into popular properties. “The Creator” is a bit of a departure from his recent work as it is an original idea. I was really looking forward to this film because it was an original piece in addition to one that has Edwards’s touch. If you have both of these things, it may summon a winning combo. And thankfully, it does. For the most part, that is.

I have heard other people praising this movie as if it is amongst the top sci-fi classics. I disagree. That said, I think that this is a solid outing for Gareth Edwards. John David Washington is good in the lead role. It is a marvelous debut for Madeleine Yuna Voyles acting-wise. One of the more controversial topics in film is the idea of hiring prominent child actors. After all, they’re young, they do not have the experience that more adult actors do, and there is also the issue of labor laws. But I have to say, Madeleine Yuna Voyles handles the material given to her with utter ease. She is incredible throughout the picture and I would love to see more from her. I honestly could not believe this was her first role.

Much like many other sci-fi classics through the ages, “The Creator” did a fine job at making me think. If there is one thing to note about this film, I think they released this at the perfect time. “The Creator” has come out at a time where artificial intelligence is already here, we are using it, and we honestly do not know where that is going to take us as a society. If there is any reason why you should see this movie, there is a good chance that it may remind you of something that is happening in your life. More and more people are handling technology and A-I to the point where it makes me wonder where we will take the technology, or where said technology will take us. This movie establishes that certain sectors of mankind should have no problem destroying A-I because it does not have emotions, it is just programming. It cannot “feel” death. But this movie makes me wonder what we will interpret as the greater good should A-I be taken to a point one could consider to be too far. The movie, on a surface level, shows what happens when A-I becomes a part of our everyday lives and we eventually resist it, but there are also many other people out there who refuse to give it up. To some people, it is so essential that they cannot see themselves living without it. To them, it is a part of evolution. It is like a generation gap except with a segment of the world.

That said, when I say that, the film also seems to treat A-I the same way another enjoyable sci-fi film, “District 9,” treats aliens. The film does suggest that A-I can be considered a threat for the most part, but it also shows that A-I kind of blended with humans over the years to the point where the two groups work together sometimes. Speaking of comparisons, “The Creator” very much reminds me of another one of my favorite science fiction films, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” Only in this case, the roles are reversed where the kid is the robot and the adult is the human. I am not saying that this movie is as good as those, but if you want a proper set of comparisons, these are the two that instantly come to mind. But there are plenty of others I could make too.

This film reminds me of “Rogue One” from its aesthetic which seems to have been carried over by Gareth Edwards. In fact sometimes various environment have a more down to earth “Star Wars” vibe. Obviously with the technology aspect, “2001” comes to mind. And speaking of Gareth Edwards films, you could even say “Godzilla” is an easy comparison to make given how a major catalyst for events to come throughout the movie happens to be a nuclear explosion. Maybe I am overthinking this, but I wanted just a little more out of “The Creator.”

“The Creator,” despite its original name, spends a lot of time taking things that have worked in prior science fiction stories and putting them all in one package. This is nothing new. I compare films all the time, whether they are good, bad, or in between. But with “The Creator,” the comparisons are abundant, perhaps not in the best way. I understand that as stories continue to be told, it becomes harder to come up with something new. But when this movie came out, I felt like that was what was being delivered to us. Instead we got “District 9” meets “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” with some other ideas in the mix. Both of those are really good movies. I saw “District 9” not long before seeing “The Creator” and had a good time with it. “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is a hallmark of the science fiction genre and does a really neat job at addressing its A-I infused message. When it comes to “The Creator,” I am going to look back at it and call it the film that tried to be the next “Terminator,” only to remind me of why I would rather watch “Terminator 2.” Or even the first “Terminator” for that matter. I think “The Creator” is a fine watch, and if you do go and support it in theaters, I think you are doing yourself a favor because it is a nice choice amongst the catalog of movies out right now. You cannot go wrong with it. But I honestly think the movie is slightly lacking in substance and despite it trying to present itself as a new idea, it feels somewhat familiar.

If I had to name the biggest positive of the movie, it is not the fact that it is an original movie being made today. If you look hard enough, you will find them in almost every corner. What matters is going to support them. And of course it would also help if the movie itself is good, which this one is. But this movie cost $80 million to make. There have been cheaper films, and there have also been more expensive films. But they use the budget nicely. Because effects-wise, the film honestly looks superior to some of the bigger blockbusters we are getting nowadays. If you look at a couple movies from last year like “Moonfall,” which cost $150 million, or even “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which cost $250 million, I would honestly say that “The Creator” packs in more polish and pizzaz than both of those examples. $80 million is a lot of money, but when you consider how much certain films are being made for in these times, I think the money was utilized to its full potential. When it comes to the world of “The Creator,” I was in awe. But once the movie concluded, I left wanting more. And I do not mean a sequel. I mean more in terms of what we got in the span of a couple hours. What we got was decent, and the movie does admittedly fly by pacing-wise. But if you ask me, it could have been better.

In the end, I had high expectations for “The Creator,” and walking out, maybe I should have considered whether they were too high. That said, it was a fine one time watch. “The Creator” has a marvelous idea behind it with a decent message and interesting characters. Performance-wise, Allison Janey is a standout as Howell. The movie does an excellent job at building a world that I could sometimes get lost in, even if it at times feels like a world from somewhere else. The characters are likable, the performances are good, and this includes the gem of a debut from Madeleine Yuna Voyles. She is going places. “The Creator” is not gonna be on my top 10 of the year, but I will say it is a fine movie. I am going to give “The Creator” a 7/10.

“The Creator” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “The Creator,” you might want to know that I have reviews coming up for “Dumb Money” and “It Lives Inside.” 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 “The Creator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Gareth Edwards’s films he has done thus far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Haunting in Venice (2023): A Not so Happy Halloween with Hercule Poirot

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Haunting in Venice” is directed by Kenneth Branagh (Belfast, Hamlet), who also stars in the film as Hercule Poirot. Also joining him in the cast are actors including Kyle Allen (West Side Story, The Path), Camille Cottin (Stillwater, House of Gucci), Jamie Dornan (Fifty Shades of Grey, Belfast), Tina Fey (Saturday Night Live, 30 Rock), Jude Hill (Belfast, Magpie Murders), Ali Khan (Red Rose, Everyone Else Burns), Emma Laird (The Crowded Room, Mayor of Kingstown), Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Yellowstone), Riccardo Scamarcio (John Wick: Chapter 2, The Woman in White), and Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings). This film is the third installment in Kenneth Branagh’s ongoing series of Agatha Christie novel adaptations. In this movie, Poirot is retired, but reluctantly attends a seance, an event where people attempt to make contact with the dead. Interestingly, that is how one person at the event ends up. Therefore, it is up to Poirot to figure out the mystery behind said person’s death.

Given how this is Branagh’s third Hercule Poirot adaptation in six years, I think his passion for the character is more evident than ever. He is once again starring as the heavily-mustached detective, in addition to putting his cushion in the director’s chair. That said, I wish I share the same passion for this series that he must have. For the record, I have still not found any time, and supposedly any interest, in checking out “Murder on the Orient Express.” I bought the 4K Blu-ray for a fairly cheap price, but even with the bargain, I still ended up never checking it out. Although I did see “Death on the Nile” last year, which I thought was in a word, fine. Even though it barely meets decency, I did technically watch it twice, as I put on HBO in a hotel room earlier this year and used it as background noise. I thought the casting was effective. And yes, I even liked Gal Gadot in it. Was she stiff at times? Maybe. But she still had enough charisma throughout the picture to be a highlight. Perhaps by just the barest of minimums, I still had enough interest to check out Branagh’s latest attempt at bringing the Poirot character to the screen.

Oh, and Michelle Yeoh is heavily used in the marketing for this film. So that won me over as well. With that in mind, how is the movie?

Unfortunately, not great.

I have seen some people saying online that “A Haunting in Venice” is apparently their favorite or the best of this particular franchise. Again, I still have not seen “Murder on the Orient Express,” but between “A Haunting in Venice” and “Death on the Nile,” I honestly would give the slight edge to “Death on the Nile.” Even with the film’s problems, I will still rather invested in everything that was going on. “A Haunting in Venice” has some entertaining moments. But it is also riddled with its fair share of moments that either annoyed or bored me. The pacing of this film is probably the most insufferable of the year.

The reason why “A Haunting in Venice” does not work, and I hate to say this because there are people I admire in this movie, is the cast. When it comes to these murder mystery style stories, I cannot imagine how hard it is at times to balance a large roster of characters like this. I do not envy Kenneth Branagh for putting himself in this position. That said, I wish the execution for these characters happened to be better. It’s been a little over a week since I have seen “A Haunting in Venice,” I honestly would not be able to tell you a single character’s name without the assistance of the Internet. That goes to show you how unappealing this movie’s characters are. And this is also why I give the edge to “Death on the Nile.” The story is more appealing. There’s more interesting drama. The rivalries kept my attention throughout. “A Haunting in Venice” had none of that. Honestly, as soon as the murder happens, the movie goes from being mediocre to a hot mess.

To be honest though, it is really sad to be saying this, because I think when it comes to the aesthetic of the film, that is the best part of it. I was totally immersed in the film’s environment, but not so much the story. Watching this film reminds me of sometimes when I would play “Watch Dogs.” I would spend some time playing that game neglecting the actual story and find myself more invested in hacking things around Chicago.

The production design of “A Haunting in Venice” is some of the best I have seen all year. I imagine if “Barbie” or “Oppenheimer” did not already exist, it could be my favorite production design of 2023. The film is set in the 1940s and the architecture, interior, and everything in between felt like they fit in with the time. While I will say “Death on the Nile” is the better film, I must admit this is one consistency that is carried over from that film to here, and it is one that is possibly better realized in this case.

Speaking of the film’s look, the cinematography is very well done from start to finish. It sort of fits the spooky, almost creepy crawly vibe the film is going for. If I had one complaint, it is that some of the imagery seems to be a bit fish-eye-like at times. It might not fish-eye by definition. But a lot of it reminds me of a fish eye effect. I would prefer if that effect, if there is one, were removed. There were some shots that were kind of distracting and took me out of the film for a second.

“A Haunting in Venice” is not just a murder mystery, it also doubles as a horror flick. Unfortunately, it is not much better as a horror flick than it is a murder mystery. The film is barely scary, if at all. There are a couple attempts to scare me that probably annoyed me more than they made me jump out of my chair. They kind of felt cheap.

To top this all off, I would like to remind you that this movie prominently features Michelle Yeoh, which I will remind you, earned an Oscar this year for her epic performance in “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I honestly think the Academy made the right choice by giving her the win. With that in mind, it is still too early to tell, but I think the Razzies could potentially make as equally of a smart choice by nominating Yeoh for the next ceremony. This performance is not only a significant step down from her previous effort, but honestly, kind of wasted. Yeoh is a great actor, so I want to hope that this may just be based on the direction that was given to her by Branagh. But when we get to the moment where Yeoh says “Listening…,” I almost had a headache. Do not get me wrong, I still love Michelle Yeoh, but she has been in better movies, and given better performances.

In the end, “A Haunting in Venice” is one of the biggest bores of the year. Thankfully, it is not even Kenneth Branagh’s worst outing in the past few years. Have you ever seen “Artemis Fowl?” If your answer is no, you have just saved yourself an hour and fifty-five minutes of torturous nonsense. That said, of the two Branagh-directed Poirot films I have seen, “A Haunting in Venice” is the worst of them. Maybe one day I will watch “Murder on the Orient Express,” but knowing that this franchise not earned the highest of praise overall, it is hard to say whether I actually will check out that film anytime soon. I have no idea if Kenneth Branagh wants to continue this franchise, but part of me thinks the franchise has died at this point. Then again, maybe he has something neat up his sleeve and I am underestimating him. I always love a good surprise. Sadly though, “A Haunting in Venice” fails as a murder mystery, and it also fails as a horror movie. Terrible combo if you ask me. I am going to give “A Haunting in Venice” a 4/10.

“A Haunting in Venice” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Fun fact, this film was produced by one of the industry’s most revered directors, Ridley Scott. And this is the perfect segway to introduce an all-new segment that I will be debuting this month, RIDLEY SCOTTOBER! That’s right! Once a week, I have not decided on the days yet because this month is kind of busy for me, I will be dropping a brand new review for a Ridley Scott-directed film. It only feels appropriate. There is not too much coming out this month that I want to see right away. I should also note I am not a Swiftie. Plus Scott has a brand new film coming out in November, specifically “Napoleon,” therefore this serves as proper preparation. The first film in the series is going to be “Body of Lies,” a 2008 action thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. I will announce the other films to be reviewed at a later date. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Haunting in Venice?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Kenneth Branagh’s Agatha Christie adaptations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Haunted Mansion (2023): A Mildly Amusing, Mildly Eerie, Mildly Decent Ride

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Haunted Mansion” is directed by Justin Simien (Bad Hair, Dear White People) and stars LaKeith Stanfield (Sorry to Bother You, Selma), Tiffany Haddish (Girls Trip, Night School), Owen Wilson (Cars, Loki), Danny DeVito (My Cousin Vinny, Jumanji: The Next Level), Rosario Dawson (Clerks II, The Mandalorian), Dan Levy (Schitt’s Creek, Happiest Season), Jamie Lee Curtis (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Halloween), and Jared Leto (Blade Runner 2049, The Little Things). Inspired by the Disney ride of the same name, this film centers around a group of people who band together in a large mansion. Together, they try to rid of evil spirits roaming around the house.

Before we begin, I must make something clear. I have not seen the other “Haunted Mansion” movie starring Eddie Murphy. I am specifically referring the one titled “The Haunted Mansion.” Therefore if you want to my thoughts about it and how it compares to this latest film, you will not be getting them. Although I do have some experience with Disney ride-based movies. While the franchise is not perfect, I think a number of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies are fun. “The Curse of the Black Pearl” and “At World’s End” particularly stand out. I also saw “Jungle Cruise” in the theater a couple years ago. I thought it was fine at best, but the charismatic cast, catchy score, and occasionally joyful imagery make the film worth seeing at least once. Speaking of “Haunted Mansion,” there was a Halloween special on Disney+ by the name of “The Muppets Haunted Mansion,” which blended the iconic puppets with a spin on the Disney attraction. Safe to say, that film was hot garbage, so I was hoping this “Haunted Mansion” movie would at least be slightly more tolerable than that.

Safe to say, this 2023 film is a step up from the 2021 “Muppets” Disney+ special. Although this should not be a surprise considering how this is not made for television. That said, it is far from being a must see picture.

As an adult, I cannot see myself watching “Haunted Mansion” again. But maybe I would if I was a kid. I am not saying that this is movie that insults anyone’s intelligence, but I think that if I were a kid watching this film, this could serve as a gateway to other horror titles down the road. It probably would have gotten me into the genre. Now that I am an adult, I have an appreciation for horror, even though I do not always watch the titles of the genre. This is not as scary as many of the more mature titles I have seen, but if we are talking about occasional chills, this movie does its job. It does not make my eyes jump out of their sockets, but this film has the unique distinction of being what I would call pleasantly scary. It is a fine line between tame and scary that will not make me have nightmares. Now to be frank, if “Haunted Mansion” upped the scares a bit, there is a good chance I would revisit the film. But if I were watching this with kids, I would enjoy the moment with them. The film is cute, but not cuddly.

One of the more notable aspects of the film is the cast. The film is stacked with big names, and they are arguably the bigger attraction in this film than… Well, the attraction. Look at these names! You have Jamie Lee Curtis, the legendary scream queen who recently won an Academy Award! There is Roasrio Dawson! Her charisma knows no bounds and it continues to shine in this film! Let us not forget Owen Wilson. Of course, with a film like this one containing a blend of scares and fun, he is definitely here to deliver some of the latter. But the protagonist of the picture is played by LaKeith Stanfield, an actor who continues to get better with time. He plays an astrophysicist turned paranormal tour guide by the name of Ben Matthias. His investment in both dark matter photography and the supernatural, or more particularly, a love interest’s investment in the supernatural, drives his every move throughout the film. I thought Stanfield was a smart, charming center of the story. But it does not mean that I was not able to latch onto anyone else. Gabbie’s (Roasrio Dawson) angle as a single mom was specifically compelling. She made a number of scenes stand out. Given the nature of this film, it is hard to complain, even though I will, about the fact that this star-studded ensemble gives average performances. Not bottom of the barrel performances, though they could have been better. But I must also say that if there is another complaint I have acting-wise, it is that even though they has some funny moments, actors like Owen Wilson and Danny DeVito for instance feel like they are playing a version of themselves to some degree. They never annoyed me throughout the film so I can forgive them somewhat, but as far as this picture goes, chameleons they are not.

The film reminds me of other lighthearted horror films to have come out in recent years. Particularly the 2015 “Goosebumps” movie and “The House with a Clock in Its Walls.” Only thing, I think enjoyed both those movies more. Maybe it is because I watched those in my teens whereas I watched “Haunted Mansion” in my twenties. But I remember thinking about “The House with a Clock in Its Walls” in particular, which is also family friendly, and seeing certain pieces of spooky imagery that continue to linger in my head today. Yes, the movie has colorful moments despite having a dark side, but it does not necessarily hold its dark side back. Maybe if I were six, I would be scared by “Haunted Mansion.” But those worries might go away by the time I am say, twelve, thirteen years old.

“Haunted Mansion,” which as of this writing came out just over three weeks ago, is not going to make a lot of money at the box office. In fact, it has practically fallen flat on its face already. The film, which cost $157 million to make, has recently surpassed the halfway mark to making its budget back. I am not talking domestic. I am talking worldwide. So for all the people who helped contribute to this film’s lack of box office, should I recommend you see “Haunted Mansion?” That requires a complicated answer. I would not recommend this movie over say “Oppenheimer,” but it may be worth watching if are going with family, or if you intend to watch the film alone like I did, maybe go for the matinee price. Or if you have a theater subscription like A-List or Unlimited, take advantage of it. The best things in life are (sort of) free.

The film, despite its forgettability, bland humor, and cast that sounds great, but could have been used more effectively, does look nice. Jeffrey Waldron’s cinematography looks really good. The CGI is unrealistic, but it fits the movie at hand. If it were in say an “Indiana Jones” flick, then we might be having a different conversation. The inside of the mansion also looks really cool. Although at the end of the day, if I have to be real, if I want the Haunted Mansion experience, I would not watch this movie again. I might just flock to Disney World if I had the money. The long line would be worth it. Again, I have not seen the Eddie Murphy film. Maybe that would be a better use of my time as well. Although judging by the 31% audience score and even less promising 13% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, maybe not.

In the end, there are things to like about “Haunted Mansion,” and the positives definitely outweigh the negatives. But the positives do not really stand out. Thankfully, the negatives are not anger-inducing. Not once did “Haunted Mansion” feel like an endurance test. It was a just a movie that I wish could have been better. It is not the scariest movie I have ever seen. It is not the funniest movie I have ever seen. It is just passable enough to the point where I can say I enjoyed a series of moments throughout. Some of the characters are neat, but the writing could be better. The look is nice, but the scares are off and on. There are better movies out there, but there also are worse movies out there. “Haunted Mansion” is somewhere in the middle. I am going to give “Haunted Mansion” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The First Slam Dunk,” “Barbie,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem,” and “Talk to Me.” 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 “Haunted Mansion?” What did you think about it? Or, if you saw the 2003 film “The Haunted Mansion,” how does this 2021 film compare to that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023): Far from Spielberg, But Not Offensive

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is directed by James Mangold (Ford v Ferrari, Logan) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Blade Runner), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Solo: A Star Wars Story), Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots, The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard), John Rhys-Davies (SpongeBob SquarePants, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring), Toby Jones (Wayward Pines, The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance), Boyd Holbrook (Narcos, The Sandman), Ethann Isidore (Sam, Mortel), and Mads Mikkelsen (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Chaos Walking). This film is the latest installment of the “Indiana Jones” franchise. This time around, the title character is done with adventures, and he is just about done with teaching. But when the opportunity to retrieve a time-spanning artifact strikes, Jones, with the assistance of his goddaughter Helena (Waller-Bridge), goes on one last adventure to acquire the object.

My dad introduced me to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” when I was eight years old. Back when Blockbuster Video was a thing. My dad picked up a copy of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” from my local Blockbuster Video and presented to it me. He said it was like “Star Wars,” an integral part of my childhood that I have carried to my adulthood. Safe to say, when he said that, my first thought was that I should just go watch “Star Wars,” so I ended up never watching the film before it was returned. Though I did eventually watch it with him when I was 13 years old because I recorded it on the DVR. I thought it was a really solid movie. For years, it was the only one I fully watched. With “Dial of Destiny” now out, I went back and revisited the first film, and watched the sequels for the first time. Despite a major hole regarding Jones’s actions towards the climax that “The Big Bang Theory” ruined for me, “Raiders” still held up nicely. “Temple of Doom” had its moments, but was not without its camp and flaws. “Last Crusade” is a contender to be one of the greatest adventure films ever made. Among other things, the film had rambunctious action scenes, great dialogue, dynamite chemistry between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery. If this were the finale of the “Indiana Jones” franchise, I would have been fine with it. Especially considering the massive downgrade that came with “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” With that came iffy at best CGI, a lack of verisimilitude compared to the other installments, haphazard characters, possibly Cate Blanchett’s career worst performance, and an underwhelming climax. The film had its moments, but they were few and far between.

Basically, the “Indiana Jones” franchise is like a see saw. One moment it is up, the next it is down. Then it goes back up, and suddenly back down. If we are going by statistics, this should mean that “Dial of Destiny” should be a step up from the franchise worst “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Thankfully, that is the case. But that is not saying much.

I had some excitement for “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” but I am not going to pretend I was bouncing off the walls about it. In addition to my long-standing indifference about “Indiana Jones” compared to other franchises, part of it might be because of how long this movie took to make since it was announced. They kept talking about the movie with little action to back it up. Also, this time around, Steven Spielberg is not at the helm. This time, the director’s chair has been given to James Mangold, whose recent “Ford v Ferrari” stands as one of the greatest car-related films of all time. When it comes to Mangold’s direction, it is not bad. The film looks good from a production standpoint. Many of the performances fit the characters. When it comes to basics, nothing stands out as a revolting negative.

That said, while the film does look good to a degree, I think it is still the worst-looking film of the “Indiana Jones” movies. Part of it has to do with how the movie is shot, specifically on digital, whereas all the previous installments were shot on film. I understand times change and digital is easier to handle. But when it comes to the look of “Indiana Jones,” it always had this dirty aesthetic to it. While it is here in parts, it is a far cry from its predecessors. With film you typically get more detail and there is a less artificial vibe to the image than digital. If I were behind the film, that is a change I would have made. As much as I knock “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” for its bad effects, everything from the sets to the framing to the grading looks a tad better. Just a little.

But if I have to point out one set piece I really liked, a lot of the moments in New York City are eye candy. I have always thought of “Indiana Jones” as a larger than life franchise, where everything has this huge scale to it. Thankfully, the Big Apple lives up to its name. There is a chase through the city during a parade that was worth watching on the big screen.

Though, per usual, Harrison Ford puts in a good performance as the title character. While I will always think of Harrison Ford as Han Solo before anyone else, I can probably gather that Indiana Jones may have been his favorite character to play all these years later. In recent years, Ford has come back to revisit a series of characters he played throughout his career. The recently mentioned Han Solo, Rick Deckard, and now Indiana Jones for the second time this century. Of these kinds of roles, I still think Ford’s outing as Rick Deckard in “Blade Runner 2049” unleashed his best chops, but it is undeniable that this outing as Indy gave him a lot more to do, and he does it all nicely. I think Ford carries the film with excellence.

Speaking of Harrison Ford, the opening scene features Indiana Jones in his prime, and in doing so, this required artists to de-age him. I have seen a mix of face alterations and instances of de-aging on film to a mix of results. Thankfully, I can say much of the de-aging in this film is more on the positive end. There is one moment where Ford tilts at a 90 degree angle that took me out of the scene, but it is so minor that it fails to ruin the big picture.

Phoebe Waller-Bridge also appears in this film, and while her performance may be great, her character is not. When I watch movies, I do not ask characters to be perfect individuals, but I want a reason to root for them. In Waller-Bridge’s case, she plays Helena, Indy’s goddaughter. The best way I can describe this character is money-hungry. Do not get me wrong, money talks. But in the case of Helena, it is practically all she thinks about and all she seeks. She is nearly the most one-dimensional character of the film by the end of it. I will admit, there is one action towards the end she did that I could get behind, but for the most part, I was not fond of her. Her chemistry with Indy is okay at best and some scenes between them are better than others.

But if I have to be real, a lot of the film’s cast is surprisingly unmemorable. When I look back on “Dial of Destiny,” Helena and Indy are the only two characters that stand out. Maybe Mads Mikkelsen, who plays Jürgen Voller, an okay antagonist, adds something to the table, but other than these three, I cannot say I outright loved any of the other characters in this film. While I did not like the characters in “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” I will admit they at least stood out. Maybe not in the best light, but still.

I do not want to spoil the climax for this movie, but all I will say about it for those who have not seen it, there is a scene that goes on for an extended time that introduces a never before seen, but totally fitting concept to the “Indiana Jones” franchise. As much as it fits, I wish it could have been explored more. So much to the point that I would have been happy had they made a whole movie about what was happening in the climax, instead of the one we got. I am not going to pretend what happens in the climax is the best thing the franchise has ever done. But if they turned that into a 2 hour movie with the title character, or heck, even a Disney+ or Paramount+ series, I think it has the potential to be really good. It would catch a lot of eyeballs. The climax had some good ideas, but it did not do enough to make the rest of the movie worth my time. This is the longest “Indiana Jones” installment yet, and I occasionally felt that runtime.

In the end, “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is not the worst film in the series, but also far from the best. This film tends to stick to the franchise’s admirable roots to some degree, but it is not enough to recapture the success of films like “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Although on the topic of roots, it is not hard to appreciate any film placed in front of you when the music is scored by John Williams. If you are a fan of the “Indiana Jones” franchise, I think there is some precedent to checking out this film. I like the franchise, though it is, as discussed, something I never grew up with. Some of you reading this, should you check out this film, may have a greater attachment to it than I did. It is by no means the worst tentpole of the year. It has a long way to go to compete with the atrociousness of “Fast X.” I just think there are better movies you can watch right now. I am going to give “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” a 5/10.

“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new comedy “Joy Ride.” Also stay tuned for my reviews for “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” “Oppenheimer,” and “Haunted Mansion.” I also have plans to watch the brand new anime “The First Slam Dunk” this Saturday, so that will be added to the list as well. Though I imagine some of you are wondering, when will I review “Barbie?” The world needs to know. Well, world, I should have you know that I have not watched it yet, but I have tickets for Sunday. If everything proceeds accordingly, I will be watching the all new blockbuster this weekend, so I will have a review for that coming soon. If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Indiana Jones” film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Elemental (2023): Pixar’s First Mishap

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Elemental” is directed by Peter Sohn (The Good Dinosaur, Ratatoullie) and stars Leah Lewis (Nancy Drew, The Half of It), Mamoudou Athie (Underwater, Jurassic World: Dominion), Ronnie del Carmen (Inside Out, Soul), Shila Omni (The Illegal, Tehran), Wendi McLendon-Covey (The Goldbergs, Rules of Engagement), and Catherine O’Hara (Schitt’s Creek, Second City Television). This film is set in a world where elements, such as water or fire, are living, breathing creatures. They all live their own lives and often follow one rule. Specifically, they cannot mix with other elements. When the fiery Ember and watery Wade meet each other, they become friendly, but as others discover their connection, they fear the consequences.

“Elemental” ended up being one of my most anticipated movies of 2023. Compared to some of the other animated titles like “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” or “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” “Elemental” had an unfair advantage. Specifically, its attachment to Pixar. Of the animation studios working today in Hollywood, Pixar is by far my favorite of the bunch. Because they have continuously pumped out quality movie after quality movie. Even some of their lesser fare like “Cars 3” and “Onward” has been enjoyable if you ask me. Though if you also ask me, I think their latest movies have not been the best efforts they have given. I have often considered Pixar to be the gold standard of modern animation with films like “Toy Story,” “The Incredibles,” and “Wall-E” for instance. But ever since the beginning of the pandemic, I have seen a streak of Pixar titles that do not live up to their predecessors. Although I thought “Turning Red” was incredible and was robbed of a wider theatrical release. Perhaps the greatest example of this is “Luca.” I thought the protagonist was shallow, the stakes and characters were not as up to par as I would have expected, and by the time we got to the end, the movie lacked a climactic feel. I saw “Lightyear” twice. But I will admit that I have no plans to watch it again in the future despite the positive times I had with it.

But “Elemental” looked like it could turn things around. At least from the teaser. I thought it looked promising, and the thought of Pixar doing a love story of sorts intrigued me. Sure, Pixar has had romantic connections in the past, but none of them appeared to drive the film as much as this one. If anything, the marketing promised something with a “Romeo & Juliet” vibe. The structure is totally different, but much like “Romeo & Juliet,” the film suggests that the two love interests cannot interact for the good of everyone, including themselves.

Sadly, it did not turn things around. And it is not like “bad” Pixar in the sense that the movie was good but not great. It is worse. For the first time in my life, I can say that I have seen a Pixar film I disliked. For the record, I do not have every Pixar feature under my belt. I still need to see “Brave,” “Monsters University,” and “The Good Dinosaur.” Other than that, I have seen everything. Of everything I have seen, this is the worst of the bunch, and distinctly so.

Though before I get to the bad, I will talk about the good. Leah Lewis and Mamoudou Athie click as Ember and Wade. The two are well cast and play off each other fantastically. As far as other voices go, I also liked Ember’s parents, Bernie (Ronnie del Carmen) and Cinder (Shila Omni). I bought into these two as a long-married couple who have been through a lot with each other and everything around them. Their voices were excellent for their parts. For the most part, the voicework, like many Pixar projects, is pretty good. The animation is also pretty stellar. Not only is it colorful and vibrant, but there is a scene towards the end of the film, where I thought I was looking at real interior. The frame cut to this concrete area and my eyes lit up. I could not believe what I was seeing. Going back to Pixar being the gold standard, one reason for that is because they always tend to make their films look incredible. Good animation is essentially a requirement in 2023, but one way Pixar separates themselves from the competition is that they will have at least one increment of the movie that looks lifelike despite being made on a computer. And this is not an exaggeration. While “Toy Story 4” is my least favorite of the franchise, one thing I still think about is how realistic a particular cat looks in it. My mind is still blown by it.

Though if I have to be real, this film bored me. Pacing-wise, this might be the weakest of the Pixar films yet. If I were watching this as a child, there is a good chance that I would be bored. One of the compliments I give to Pixar films like “Inside Out” is how much more adults might end up liking it than their children, but I say that while acknowledging that the movie would also appeal to children. Then again, I remember being a child and it was a rarity for me to think a movie could be “bad.” But if I were a child watching this movie, I would probably pick “The Incredibles” or “Up” before watching this one again. There are more fantastical elements about those titles that would appeal to me at the time, and honestly, still appeal to me today. I like the idea of this film, as it is inspired by Peter Sohn’s parents and their story of being immigrants in the United States, but it did not translate well to a movie. Maybe if it were translated into another movie, I would feel different. But this is what we have, and unfortunately, it kind of blows.

For the most part, Pixar films have decent humor. I still think one of the greatest visual gags in not just Pixar’s history, but in all of cinema, is the scene in “Toy Story 2” where Al exposes he needs “to go all the way to work on a Saturday.” He drives from his apartment building to his place of work located, of all places, across the street. America. Scenes like this highlight why it pains me to say the worst thing about “Elemental” is the humor. Not only does just about every joke and gag in the film fail to land, but they feel interchangeable. Every joke in the film is a play on words or actions regarding the element at hand. This would have been fine if I were laughing, but again, I was not.

Perhaps the worst example of the bad humor in this film comes from the supporting character of Clod, a teenage tree. This character has a crush on Ember, somewhere between casual and to the point of desperation. That would be fine, but every line and visual gag of out of this character regarding that made me cringe. I could tell the movie was trying to be funny, it was trying to be clever. But in doing so, it kind of resorted to basic puns the whole way. For the record, I do plays on words and puns all the time. Though I recognize to some capacity, they are on the lower end of the humor scale. They do not take much time or effort to craft. And they can land phenomenally, but there are plenty that if you mention them, you should be… PUNished.

I have no idea if this is inside joke or not, but there is a scene in “Elemental” where it honestly comes off as a parody for the entire Pixar brand. There is a game the water characters tend to play, specifically “the crying game.” Okay…? First off, regarding the inside joke thing, I would not be surprised if this is written in response to Pixar’s history of making viewers cry during certain movies. Movies like “Toy Story 3,” “Inside Out,” and “Coco” just to name a few. Second, I know this is not a real world, but even if it is not, what a ridiculous game! I mean, if these people played it on occasion maybe I would not be CRYING about it, oh boy, here we go with the wordplay… Why would you want to play a game where you cry all the time? It is actually kind of cringeworthy to be honest. Yeah, maybe there is a water joke attached to this, but I did not find the scenes in which these games were attached to amusing or entertaining whatsoever.

In the end, “Elemental” is Pixar’s worst film yet. This is an easy call to make because, again, it is the first one I saw that I walked out of saying I did not have a good time. I have a long history with Pixar. “Cars” was my first movie in the theater. For years, “The Incredibles” stood as my favorite animated title. I love Pixar. But their last few films, minus “Turning Red,” have not met that standard I am used to the studio achieving, and “Elemental” is just the latest film to avoid the prestige many other Pixar titles have acquired. If you want to go see a killer animated title in theaters right now, just stick to “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.” You will thank me later. I am going to give “Elemental” a 4/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! I have more reviews coming soon including “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” “Joy Ride,” “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” and “Oppenheimer.” 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 “Elemental?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that destroyed your positive track record with either a studio or a filmmaker? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023): James Gunn Fires On All Cylinders in This Marvel Trilogy Finale

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is directed by James Gunn (The Suicide Squad, Slither) and stars Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The LEGO Movie), Zoe Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek), Dave Bautista (Stuber, My Spy), Karen Gillan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Doctor Who), Pom Klementieff (Oldboy, Westworld), Vin Diesel (Bloodshot, The Fast and the Furious), Bradley Cooper (A Star is Born, Silver Linings Playbook), Will Poulter (We’re the Millers, The Maze Runner), Sean Gunn (Gilmore Girls, The Suicide Squad), Chukwudi Iwuji (Peacemaker, Designated Survivor), Linda Cardellini (ER, Freaks and Geeks), Nathan Fillion (The Rookie, Firefly), and Sylvester Stallone (Rocky, Cliffhanger). In this third installment to the “Guardians of the Galaxy” trilogy, the guardians must save the universe one last time, all the while protecting one of their own. Meanwhile, Peter continues to deal with the loss of Gamora, his love interest.

Of the Marvel Cinematic Universe titles out there, “Guardians of the Galaxy” may be the most distinct of the bunch. Sure, like all the others, it involves superheroes and saving the day. But it has a flavor to it that seperates it from “Iron Man,” “Captain America,” or “Ant-Man.” Part of it may be because of its off-world setting. Sure, a small part of the series is set on earth because Star Lord, the core member of the group, is an earthling. But he ends up becoming one with these faraway worlds. These films define escapism. Between the epic soundtracks, the heavy reliance on space, and the unique characters and surroundings, few Marvel films are as breathtakingly out of this world as these. That said, I am not going to pretend they do not have flaws.

Like many others, I love the first “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Although similar to many of Marvel’s films, the villain is kind of weak. Ronan does not stand out significantly, and he is kind of cliché. That said he does have his moments. Thankfully, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” has a much more compelling antagonist in Ego. Unfortunately the movie did not stick the landing for me. It was not funny, overly cartoony, and I sometimes did not buy some of the things that were happening. Oh, and unpopular opinion, I am not a fan of Baby Groot. I did not find him charming, and the movie overuses him to the point where he becomes a bore. That said, I do like the addition of Mantis. As for “The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special,” I was shocked with how much I ended up digging it. I thought the concept was brilliant, and the execution exceeded my expectations. As far as Disney+ MCU content goes, it is by far one of the better pieces of media on the platform. Even with the ups and downs of this franchise, there is a consistency that I often consider a highlight, and that is the touch of James Gunn.

James Gunn is one of my favorite people working in Hollywood. He makes great Marvel content, he makes great DC content, and I love his persona on Twitter. He will willingly call out horribly inaccurate or clickbaity journalism regarding his content. He strikes me, from his personality, as the right person to direct these movies, and it shows as I watched “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” Many comic books have a stylized nature to them, and the “Guardians of the Galaxy” movie franchise, along with this particular installment, presents itself in a palatable style that comes off as comic booky. You have well-written quips, fast pacing, and charismatic characters. When it comes to that last aspect, it is through the roof. If there is any franchise within the MCU that has the most charisma from its characters, it is arguably this one. In fact, perhaps the most likable character of the titular team is getting some more spotlight this time around. How could I say no to that?

When I think of Rocket, I think of Bradley Cooper. In fact, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is typically the first movie I often visualize of when the thought of Bradley Cooper comes to mind. Either that or “A Star is Born.” However, what makes Rocket compelling this time around is not Bradley Cooper’s presence, if anything, it is his lack of it. Despite saying that, most of the movie centers around him. Specifically through transitions between his present adulthood and his past childhood. The younger Rocket is voiced by someone who I often forget probably does a lot of heavylifting in this franchise, Sean Gunn. Between playing Kraglin, being Rocket’s double, and now serving as the younger Rocket’s voice, Sean Gunn continues to show his range of skills in this franchise. What makes Rocket’s younger iteration absolutely compelling is not only seeing the ins and outs of his younger personality, but how much he transitions to the Rocket he is today based on everything he witnesses at that time. During these flashback scenes, we see Rocket befriend other tiny creatures, and they all have these dynamic, hyperactive, child-like airs about them.

While I complained about how Baby Groot, a younger character, was used in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” I think a highlight for this film is its younger character slate. Because even though this movie pulls a 2016 “Suicide Squad” and endlessly shows flashbacks, they managed to seamlessly connect them with the present while giving an entertaining narrative by itself. While I have become comfortable watching the wisecracking racoon from the past couple films, I found myself compelled by a much softer variant of the character, and his development is perfectly realized throughout. His relationship with supporting animal sidekicks Lylla, Teefs, and Floor made for a great ride in terms of the narrative and the roller coaster of emotions I ended up experiencing as a result of this film. James Gunn effectively plays with my emotions like a fiddle throughout the runtime, and I love him for that. Speaking of James Gunn, let’s dive into one of his trademarks.

One of James Gunn’s talents through his career, specifically in comic book movies, is giving CGI characters significantly more emotional attachment than I have seen some humans have in film. One of my favorite moments of the original “Guardians of the Galaxy” is from the third act, where we see Groot sacrifice himself and recognize the bond he has amongst his fellow teammates. It is a very simple moment, but because of his limited dialogue, both in terms of the number of times he speaks and his diction, the weight of that moment is paramount. The moment he says the words, “We are Groot,” I felt that. In the 2021 movie “The Suicide Squad,” we see King Shark’s story play out, where like Groot, he is kind of simple-minded. He has limited vocabulary, he speaks in fragments, and does not have the most thought-out ideas. But whenever the movie resorts to his arc regarding his desire for friendship, it clicked with me. This talent also transitions to “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” based on Rocket’s arc and his connection with his younger pals. I know James Cameron often talks about his “Avatar” films being the pinnacle of CGI, and I will agree with the notion that the films look stunningly beautiful. But those films deliver plenty of gloss while neglecting personality. “Guardians of the Galaxy” is the best of both worlds where the CGI characters not only look great and have a degree of verisimilitude, but their dialogue and interactions benefit the narrative.

I ended up caring about most of the other characters as well. I think Chris Pratt does a good job once again as Star Lord, possibly giving the angriest performance I have seen out of the character yet. Gamora was well explored with her new self. What makes this interpretation of Gamora interesting is not necessarily her, but how others perceive her. I enjoyed seeing Star Lord have to deal with a Gamora that had no memory of who he was. I think that made for a compelling side plot. Dave Bautista gives a killer performance out of Drax. It combines the character’s strengths from the previous two movies and happily marries them.

As much as I like the effects in this film, I think Groot in this installment has the worst design I have seen of the character thus far. He looks too bulky and cartoony. As much as I did not like the Baby Groot character in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” I liked the way he looked. I cannot say the same about this interpretation. It is not awful, but compared to his predecessors, Groot in this film looks more like a Disney+ original CGI character.

The other character I thought was not utilized properly was Cosmo. Unlike Groot, I have no problem with the way this dog looks. But I do not think Maria Bakalova’s voice was a good fit. I remember Cosmo appeared in the holiday special and I did not have this complaint then. And when I mention this complaint, I am not referring to Bakalova herself. I blame the direction based on the uniqueness of the voice performance not paying off. Maybe if I watch the film a second time I will change my mind on this. Who knows? Plus, her arc almost feels insignificant compared to other characters. There is not much to it. When it was resolved, it was not as satisfying as some of the others.

Funny thing about “Guardians of the Galaxy,” as much as I adore the first film, I think its weakest element is the antagonist, specifically Ronan the Accuser. Meanwhile, I find “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” to be an inferior installment, but Ego is a fantastic antagonist. With this film coming between those two for me, I would say the antagonist of “Vol. 3” does the same. The High Evolutionary is fantastically performed by Chukwudi Iwuji. He is a little over the top at times, but even some of his more over the top moments, fit with what is going on. Plus, he was fairly intimidating in terms of his actions, motivations, and line delivery. I would not want to be the one responsible for ruining his day.

When I look back at at the previous “Guardians of the Galaxy” films, I would sum this franchise up to be the “Star Wars” of the MCU. Because aside from taking place in space, there is a lot of crazy action, futuristic weaponry, and a rag tag team of charismatic individuals. Some could also make the comparison to “Star Trek” if they wanted to, I could see a ton of similarities there as well. As for this third movie, I feel like the “Trek” vibes increase with this installment because it feels more allegorical than the previous two. It is not to say the previous two had bad stories, but I picked up on the message of the film a bit more quickly in regards to how it handles experimentation and animal cruelty. “Star Trek” over the years, and more recently, “The Orville,” has dealt with serious issues that affect our society despite being set somewhat outside of it. Not to pick a fight, I am more of a “Star Wars” fan than a “Star Trek” fan. But a strength of “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is that it does what the “Star Trek” franchise does best, and that tendency is going to stick with me. You could argue that “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” is an allegory for animal cruelty with the Canto Bight sequence, but that is a smaller chunk of the film. Plus, that sequence, not to mention that film, did not emotionally resonate with me as much.

One complaint I will bring up regarding movies I do not like is that sometimes they will feel like two movies in one. In fact, Marvel, despite me liking most of their movies recently, falls victim to this complaint as well. “Thor: Love and Thunder” mostly blends comedy and drama seamlessly at times, but there are times where the comedy is stretched too far. “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is in the same boat. It is a massive adventure that tries to maintain the small-scale lightheartedness of its predecessors. When it comes to this installment, it is overly silly at one moment, but quickly transitions to being flat out dramatic in another. There is almost no between. For the record, both of those movies barely received positive scores from me. Although the tonal inconsistency happens to be the biggest flaw for both projects. “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is another movie that could have fallen victim to this flaw. However, it does not despite having two major stories dominating the screen at every other moment. The reason is because of one story’s seamless connection to the other, without making one feel out of place. They had an equal partnership that delivered equally satisfying results.

And ultimately, that is the best adjective I can use to sum up “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” It is a satisfying finale. It takes the characters that people have come to know and love, and uses them in ways that triggers all sorts of emotions. Is this the best movie in the franchise? No. The first installment is still my favorite, but I find this latest sequel to be a significant step up from the second. James Gunn does not mess around with this film. It was said that this would be the finale for this group of characters, and as a finale, there are only a few ways it could have been executed better. But as far as this group of characters go, they end their arcs fantastically. No spoilers, but there was one line towards the end of the movie from one character that caught me off guard in the best possible way. I would not be surprised if we see some of these characters again in the future, say in an “Avengers” installment. But as far as the “Guardians of the Galaxy” franchise goes, I would be fine if we never get another one of these films as long as the MCU continues to exist. Maybe talk to me again in ten, fifteen years, we will see. But right now, I do not need to see any more knowing how things conclude. Plus, with James Gunn now at DC, all I can think about is what the process must be like to find a potential successor to him if this were to go on.

One last thing before we move on, if you have read many of my past Marvel reviews, my biggest fear regarding this universe is that with each movie, it feels like I, as an audience member, am being assigned homework. With the Disney+ shows now being a thing, the universe is starting to feel like overkill. Thankfully, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” feels like less of a commercial for other Marvel content than say “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” or “Black Widow,” which utilize themselves to advertise upcoming content that is not in their specific medium. Personally, it feels a bit tacky. Now, there is something exposed in “The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special” that is addressed in this movie, but I do not think you would need to spend money on Disney+ to watch the special to find out what that something is. As for the theatrically released movies, I think the previous “Guardians” films and maybe the last two “Avengers” installments would be my recommended prerequisites. That said, you could probably have a good time watching this movie on its own without any prior material being fed to you. For a 32nd film in an ongoing universe, that is a huge compliment.

In the end, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is a thrill ride. Visually stunning, narratively pleasing, and massively satisfying. Another Marvel franchise now has a trilogy. It is amazing how far we have come. Is “Guardians of the Galaxy” my favorite of the Marvel trilogies? As much as liked this film in addition to the original, the second film keeps that from being a reality. It is a solid trilogy and despite my neverending flack for the second film, it does have its moments. But I think as far as a consistent run goes, I think “Iron Man,” “Spider-Man,” and “Captain America” reign supreme. I still think when I add up my scores for these films, the “Guardians” films outranks the first three “Thor” installments and the recently completed “Ant-Man” trilogy. But unlike the recent “Ant-Man” trilogy capper, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” was a ton of fun. I went in hoping to have a good time, and I ended up having a great time. It is not without its flaws. Before I forget, I must admit the climax, while entertaining, is occasionally bloated and goes on for a bit longer than I would have anticipated. Although that statement feels like less of a problem when I also remember that it is responsible for what is now my favorite action sequence in the franchise. With that said, I am going to give “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” an 8/10.

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I have plenty of reviews coming soon including “Renfield,” “BlackBerry,” and “The Blackening,” the last of which does not widely release until June, but I got to see it last night through a free screening so I will have my thoughts on the film when possible. Tomorrow I will be going to see “Fast X,” which despite my appreciation for certain parts of the franchise, kind of feels like an obligation, but hey, it’s a movie. Either way, all of these reviews are 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 “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite MCU trilogy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023): Huge in Scope, Tiny in Believability, But Serviceable in Enjoyment

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is directed by Peyton Reed, who also directed the prior two “Ant-Man” films. This film stars Paul Rudd (Dinner for Schmucks, Ghostbusters: Afterlife), Evangeline Lilly (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Lost), Jonathan Majors (Lovecraft Country, Devotion), Kathryn Newton (Blockers, Freaky), Bill Murray (Caddyshack, Groundhog Day), Michelle Pfeiffer (Hairspray, Batman Returns), and Michael Douglas (Fatal Attraction, Wall Street). This is the third installment to the “Ant-Man” franchise, in addition to being the 31st film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In this latest adventure, Scott, Hope, Cassie, Hank, and Janet are taken into the Quantum Realm via a signal device. When they find themselves in this larger than life environment, they must familiarize themselves with its surroundings and survive. One such obstacle is Kang the Conqueror (Majors), who claims he can allow Scott to make up for lost time with his daughter.

“Ant-Man” is not my favorite franchise within the MCU, although I have always found it to be one that has been continuously distinct. For one thing, these films have always come out a couple months after “Avengers” titles. Specifically “Age of Ultron” and “Infinity War.” I have a feeling these films were placed around these release schedules on purpose. Not just for how it fits in the main story, but because of the vibe these movies try to shoot for. In these stories, Ant-Man is not only small in size, but so are the stakes. It is not say there are not any stakes at all, but compared to “Avengers” titles, where practically the whole world is in peril, the main objective is to save a neighborhood, save a community. After “Avengers: Infinity War,” it felt nice to have a more happy go lucky adventure with these characters in “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” I cannot say the movie was great, but there were glimmers of joy to be had. Overall, these movies are not packed with as much doom and gloom as other adventures the MCU has to offer. This time around, it is a little different.

This film, in addition to starting phase 5 and setting the stage what is to come, prominently features Kang the Conqueror, played by Jonathan Majors. This is not Majors’ first outing in the MCU, as he played the “He Who Remains” variant of this character in the Disney+ series “Loki.” Majors did not have a ton to do in the series, as he was only around for the season finale, but he had a particular, non-glorious purpose in the series as he does in this movie. While I cannot say He Who Remains was the major highlight for me in “Loki,” one compliment I can give to Jonathan Majors in “Ant-Man in the Wasp: Quantumania” is that he steals every scene he is in. There was a lot of hype going in regarding his character and I can confirm it is real. Is it the best MCU villain since Thanos? That depends. I will be real with you, the franchise has actually had some decent villains since his appearance, and I may be cheating a bit since it is a progression of a character that was done in another fashion, but I believe “Spider-Man: No Way Home’s” take on Green Goblin was incredible. Possibly the best use of the character on screen. I would say for me, Kang comes close to that level.

Speaking of the film’s stars, let’s talk about Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd has always maintained a certain down to earth feel within his Scott Lang character with each appearance despite going around in tights. I have always liked that. This time around, while still emitting a similar vibe to his previous appearances, Lang starts off this film a bit differently than before. For one thing, the character has evolved with each go, becoming more and more well known. He is a hero, an Avenger, an icon on the streets. In fact, he starts the movie by promoting his new book, “Look Out for the Little Guy.” I like this concept. I think if there is one thing recent Marvel movies have been doing on a consistent basis that fits into the timeline, it is referencing the progression of the universal canon and its characters. It makes sense that Scott Lang, who has probably burnt himself out a little from being a hero, would resort to writing a book about himself and selling it to an audience. It would make for a page turning story and a chance to continue his fame. If there is one thing that is noticeable about the Scott Lang character, and the movie in general, is that it feels like a tale of two stories, or vibes. One vibe is the consistent “so small it feels big” nature of the previous two installments. The other is this “Avengers-level” feel that kicks in somewhere around the Quantum Realm. There is a point in this movie, and Scott Lang as a character is evident of this, where the lighthearted nature I was previously used to seeing kind of takes a backseat. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

This time around, there is a new performer in the shoes of Cassie Lang, specifically Kathryn Newton. This makes sense. In the MCU timeline, there was a time jump for five years, therefore it makes it a tad harder to believe that Abby Ryder Fortson, who played Cassie in the prior “Ant-Man” installments, is the age this movie suggests she is. I was excited to hear Kathryn Newton, an actress who I adored since “Blockers,” would be playing Cassie this time around. She does a fine job here. She is not the standout of the movie, but I thought she brought her own sense of joy to this role even though this is a more mature version of this character. I adored Fortson’s performance as Cassie in the previous works because she matched the happy go lucky nature of the film. Newton, while definitely another animal, maintains some of those consistencies. This is not the first time a teen Cassie has been in the MCU, Emma Fuhrmann made an appearance as the character in “Avengers: Endgame.” But I nevertheless think Newton did a swell job with this film in particular.

My biggest problem with “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been a consistent problem in the MCU lately. The effects. Now let me be fair, there are various aspects of the Quantum Realm, which is pretty much all CGI, that look breathtaking There are a lot of visuals in this film that pop. If anything, I would put “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the same boat as “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which has plenty of visuals to enjoy, but there are also some noticeable duds. Despite what I said about the Quantum Realm looking nice, there are also particular shots where I thought I was looking at a green screen or a StageCraft setup. Despite how I did not end up loving “Avatar: The Way of Water,” my problems with the film never concerned its looks. What made that film so awe-inspiring is how real everything looked despite being almost entirely done through computers, motion capture, or digital effects. Even though I disagree with Martin Scorcese’s opinion that Marvel movies are nothing more than theme parks, I will say that “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is almost one of the more theme park-esque adventures in the MCU because it is mostly about spectacle, but it almost utilizes its gimmick too much to the point where nothing feels authentic.

In reality, as immersed as I felt at times into the whole Quantum Realm universe, which was definitely aided by the IMAX experience, the problem with the Quantum Realm that it occasionally felt like a universe that was created for a screen and not one that felt like I could go into it. The best comparison I could use in this case would be to say that the Quantum Realm universe is similar to the environment explored in “Strange World.” It tries to be bonkers, but it gets caught up in its bonkers nature that nothing feels real. “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” despite being an indescribably weird movie that travels to many different universes, feels more real than “Quantumania” and “Strange World.”

Speaking of things that do not feel real, I want to talk about M.O.D.O.K.. Not for long though because there were certain things about the character I did not know going into this film. One thing I will say about M.O.D.O.K. is the same thing I will say about the CGI. At times it works, at other times, it is taken to such an extreme that it felt out of place. There is a certain reveal in this movie that kind of makes sense, but it also spawned a problem that constantly came up. The character’s design. There is a certain “design” if you will, to this character that is so off-putting that it makes Power Rangers costumes look more realistic. I will not say more. This is all I have to give on the character. It adds to the plate of this film’s occasionally lackluster visual outlook.

But at the same time, this is honestly disappointing to say because the MCU, which has continued to set a competitive bar for its visuals year after year despite having multiple movies come out, is starting to worsen its craft. Part of it is because this universe is focusing way more on quantity than it used to. With so many shows on Disney+ in addition to the movies coming out months apart, the MCU is starting to feel like school instead of a fun franchise. The movies are part of the core classroom curriculum, the television shows are homework, and the shorter form specials like “The Guardians of the Galaxy: Holiday Special” are extra credit. But when it was just a bunch of movies, it felt simple and easy to understand. Now having watched “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” for instance, one of the questions I have had before, during, and after watching said movie regards how many people needed to watch “WandaVision” to fully appreciate or understand everything that was going on. As much as I enjoyed certain shows like “WandaVision” and “Ms. Marvel,” if there were a way to get back to a time where the Marvel Cinematic Universe were only CINEMA specific, I would like to find out about it. The quality has suffered while the quantity has grown. If I had to give one solid mark to phase 4, it is that while no movie is perfect, I liked all of them. I am just waiting for the day when I can love each movie I see, or not quickly forget about one as much. I loved “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” I loved “Shang-Chi.” But I would rather forget about a vast majority of the MCU shows. “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is a sign that the MCU still has its wheels on the wagon, but if they continue to pump out as much content as they are making right now, they might need to realign those wheels a bit.

In fact, one of my bigger problems with this film and how it connects to the whole “see this to understand that” thing is one of the post-credits scenes. Which by the way, if you are planning to stay after the movie, there are two. For the record, the post-credit scenes are not awful. In fact, I liked both of them. But the second movie harkens back to my worry with the MCU feeling like school. Because one of the scenes were specific to an upcoming television program. My apprehension, which could go away, I reserve the right to change my mind, is that this teased television event might not be understood as well unless you saw “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” I am not saying this has happened with every recent Marvel project, and I am not saying it will. That said, this movie reinstates my fear that it will.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” seems to bridge the gap between where the previous saga, the Infinity Saga, culminates, and sets a stage as to where the Multiverse Saga could be going. This does not start the new saga. We are just starting phase 5 and the Multiverse Saga already kicked off in phase 4. Although one of the most poignant notions about “Avengers: Endgame” is the realization of how much people have missed for five years. When Thanos snapped in “Avengers: Infinity War,” he basically initiated a five-year, luck-based, societal imprisonment. Meanwhile, Lang spent a ton of that time stuck in the Quantum Realm. But the film manages to bridge a gap between lost time and the breaking of the multiverse. It is essentially saying we are moving on from one thing to the next. Unfortunately, it also means that a seemingly investing idea about recovering lost time occasionally takes a back seat in the film for more bonkers, seemingly brooding CGI mayhem. I could tell Peyton Reed was intentionally making a film that separates itself from its two predecessors. I am not saying “Ant-Man” is not allowed to be serious. But I am saying that “Ant-Man” works better when it is lighthearted, but still action-packed.

In the end, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” ranks down the middle for me in terms of the “Ant-Man” trilogy. While this is not as good as the first movie, there are more redeeming elements for me in this third movie than the second. It honestly may come down to pure personal tastes. At its core, this is a film that is full of inconsistencies. In one moment, the story is lighthearted. In another, it is dark. In one moment, the effects are stunning. In another, they are crap. In one moment, there is tons of comedy. In another, the humor takes a backseat. The film is not abysmal, but to call it a masterpiece would be generous. If anything, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” reminds me of “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Both films are wildly inconsistent, despite there being a series of moments that land on their feet with ease. In fact, another way both films are similar is their score, because I am going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 6/10.

I was going to give “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” a 7/10 because I had a great time with it in the theater, but the more I thought about it. A lot of my negatives, in addition to the inconsistencies, stood out, and that muddied the waters a bit. It also seems to work more as setup for what is to come as opposed to a self-contained story. This is not to say the story is uninteresting, but its promises seem to stand out more than what is happening right now. Not a bad movie, but not a great movie either. Nevertheless, it might be a good time at the theater, so I would still, by a slight edge, recommend it.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, why not check out some of my other ones? I have reviewed a ton of superhero fare over the past year including “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” “Black Adam,” “DC League of Super-Pets,” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” Check those reviews out at your convenience!

Also, be sure to stay tuned for March 5th, because I will be dropping the 5th Annual Jack Awards! This is the latest edition of my painstakingly prepared film awards show, hopefully to brilliant execution. In addition, there will be video content which will also be posted on my YouTube channel. If you would like to vote for Best Picture for this year’s show, you can do that by clicking the link right here! It will take you to a Google form where you can choose one of the ten movies I previously nominated. May the Best Picture win. To check out the official nominations, click here! 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 “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania?” What did you think about it? Or, which “Ant-Man” movie is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022): Is the Movie Event of 2022 Worth the 13 Year Wait?

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Avatar: The Way of Water” is directed by James Cameron (The Terminator, True Lies) and stars Sam Worthington (Sabotage, Clash of the Titans), Zoe Saldana (Guardians of the Galaxy, The Adam Project), Sigourney Weaver (Ghostbusters, Alien), Stephen Lang (Don’t Breathe, Tombstone), Kate Winslet (Titanic, Divergent), Cliff Curtis (Training Day, Three Kings), and Joel David Moore (Dodgeball, Bones). This film is the long-awaited sequel to the 2009 film “Avatar,” also directed by James Cameron. This time around, Jake and Neytiri, along with their children, move from the forest and adapt to life by the sea. Meanwhile, humanity strikes once again to kill Jake Sully.

I have not seen every film James Cameron has done. I still have not seen “Aliens.” I still have not seen “The Abyss.” That said, he can direct a movie. I loved “The Terminator.” Its follow-up, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” belongs amongst my favorite films of all time. “Titanic” is a massive spectacle with a thrilling climax. “True Lies” is a hilarious, fun action movie. Cameron also recently produced “Alita: Battle Angel,” directed by Robert Rodriguez. It has some of my favorite visual effects and action sequences in recent cinema. The man knows how to entertain.

The first “Avatar” is not my favorite movie James Cameron made. Kind of like “Titanic,” the beauty of the film does not always lie in its screenplay, and more so its looks. However, the film made over $2 billion and is the highest-grossing movie of all time. Naturally, whether Cameron wanted to or not, a sequel definitely had to be made. “Avatar: The Way of Water” is the result of thirteen years of Cameron’s transition from one movie to the next. Even I, someone who barely cares about the original “Avatar,” was curious about this film. The trailers looked decent, and whatever visuals they revealed looked stunning. I had a couple chances to see the trailers in 3D, and I was marveled by a couple sequences in said format.

This leads me to my biggest positive with “Avatar: The Way of Water.” This film is the single-greatest use of 3D I have ever seen. For the record, I got to see the original film in 3D last September, and this film surpasses it. It surpasses some other 3D standouts for me like “Gravity,” “Oz the Great and Powerful,” and “The Hobbit” trilogy. As far as blockbuster filmmaking goes, there is no movie I can think of that has done 3D this well to the point where it felt like more than a cheap gimmick. Speaking of unusual technical specifications, “Avatar: The Way of Water” was shot in 48 frames per second. This is an aspect which “The Hobbit” trilogy also utilized both in filming and during select screenings. For the most part, it works. At times, I felt like I was watching a series of video game cutscenes, which sounds like a detractor, but I kind of intend it as a compliment.

However, the unfortunate thing is that since these are my biggest positives, I imagine there are people out there who might never get to experience said positives if they watch this movie. For one thing, 3D at home is not as big of a thing as it may have been over a decade ago. And I am not sure what Disney/James Cameron plans to do in regards to the frame rate for this film’s home release. Although one positive that can be experienced regardless of the setup is the visual effects.

If I have to be honest, if there is any other film that is going to win the Oscar for Best Visual Effects this year, I might start trying to defy gravity because nothing would make sense any more. Similar to what I said about the 3D, the visual effects were great in the original “Avatar,” but they are a step up in “The Way of Water.” The water sequences in this film are some of the best-looking of the year. For the most part, the visuals in this sequel are as perfect as can be. It really felt like everyone took their time with minute details to allow for the perfect color and polish. Some of the cinematography, done by previous Cameron collaborator Russell Carpenter, accompanies said visuals well. There is one shot of a sunset where my eyes lit up. The aesthetic of “Avatar: The Way of Water” does not disappoint.

What does disappoint instead is the story and characterization. You know, the essential things that make movies worth watching.

While I liked the trailers for “Avatar: The Way of Water,” what these trailers always lacked is depth into what the story is about. The film thankfully provides a story, but not a good one. It is less by the numbers than the first movie, but somehow it feels more boring. The visuals are pretty enough to distract me from that, but the characters are uninteresting. In one of my most recent reviews, specifically for “Strange World,” I said the movie is “like a first date with the most attractive woman alive, only to find out she has zero personality whatsoever.” “Avatar: The Way of Water” is kind of like “Strange World” in the sense that the environment feels more important than the characters, but to the point where the characters lack a certain prominence they would otherwise have in most halfway decent movies.

There have been movies where the characters do not stand out that nevertheless find a way to stick the landing. But not every movie can be “Dunkirk.”

“Avatar: The Way of Water” presents a fascinating concept. Specifically, now that Jake and Neytiri have offspring, how does this affect their behavior compared to the first film? In general, I dug the family dynamic, and there were moments in this film that felt relatable based on said dynamic. Although the characters themselves lack dimension and personality. I admire Sigourney Weaver for trying her best at playing an animated teenage girl, but I would not say it is my favorite performance of hers.

In fact, the family dynamic is not the only concept of fascination. The whole water land itself comes with some halfway decent ideas. Similar to the first movie where a particular tree plays a prominent role in societal beliefs and customs, the equivalent to that in this film is a group of whales. Although as fascinating as it is to see the bond between the bunches of blue characters with whales in this film, this leads to yet another story critique where this film feels like another version of the original, only less watchable.

This movie reintroduces familiar characters like Jake, Neytiri, and Quaritch. It also brings in new faces. Some of these include Jake and Neytiri’s kids: Kiri, Lo’ak, Neteyam, and Tuk. I bet some time after writing this review, I will not remember some of these names. At a point in the movie, the story revolves more about the children than it does their parents. I am not against this. In fact, despite my lack of interest with the story itself, some aspects of this were handled with competency. The film’s new characters have their moments. However, if I have to name a least favorite of the characters, it would be this one person named Spider.

Unlike Jake and the rest of the Sullys, who are half human, half Na’Vi, Spider, who Jake also raised, is entirely human. Although he tends to behave like one of the Na’Vi. While I am optimistic about Jack Champion’s future as an actor and wish him nothing but the best, his character was awfully written. At first sight, the character is presented with an intriguing backstory, but as the movie went on, he felt increasingly out of place, and by the end, I questioned his actions. There are few words that I could come up with to describe Spider as a character. “Conflicting” would certainly be one of them.

“Avatar: The Way of Water” takes a lot of what works in the original. Such things include the visuals, the exploration, the flying sequences. Ultimately, this sequel improves those things. At the same time, a lot of I found to be imperfect with the first film such as the story, the dialogue, and its lack of getting me to care for certain characters, make a return here as well. If you want me to be real with you, the climax of this film, at times, is more entertaining than the climax in the original “Avatar.” Should you pay to see this film in theatres, the climax alone makes the film worth the price of admission. I am clearly not a huge fan of the film, therefore I would not pay to see “Avatar: The Way of Water” a second time. That said, I imagine plenty of people will. I think if there is a reason to see this film, the climax would make for a compelling argument.

The theater experience for “Avatar: The Way of Water” rivals “Top Gun: Maverick” in terms of immersion, but if I had to choose a film between the two to watch again, I think “Maverick” is the superior option because despite the film occasionally coming off as another version of the original “Star Wars,” the characters are likable and serve the story. Do the characters serve the story in “Avatar: The Way of Water?” Sure. But I would say they do so with less charisma and personality than those in “Top Gun: Maverick.”

I have not ridden the “Avatar” theme park ride at Disney World. Maybe if I take a trip there in the future I would give it a whirl, but I just never had the opportunity to ride it. Although I must say that “Avatar: The Way of Water,” much like a ride at Disney World, is wildly immersive, but almost to the point of being a pretty gimmick. The 3D definitely stands out, and while I said earlier the 3D does not feel like a gimmick, it belongs in a film that nearly comes off as a gimmick itself. When I left the film, I thought more about how it took me into Pandora, which may sound like a compliment, until I thought about how little it took me into the lives of its characters. While last year’s big movie event, “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” had some imperfections, I would rather watch that again to see the characters go through their individual journeys. Although one imperfection “No Way Home” has, like “The Way of Water,” was that I found the ending to be somewhat poor. Although the journey to get to the ending for “No Way Home” invested me emotionally while getting me to care for the core characters. I will give credit to “Avatar: The Way of Water” for having a more appealing visual aesthetic to it, but as the old saying goes, “Avatar: The Way of Water” is yet another example of style over substance.

I would even say that “Avatar: The Way of Water” has narration that at times that is either as tacked on or as bad as the original “Blade Runner.” When I say the original “Blade Runner,” I am talking the original. As in, the one where Harrison Ford sounds like he is half asleep when voicing what he learned about Roy. The one that I imagine a lot of young people experiencing the film for the first time will not even get to hear. I am sorry, but for a movie that carries itself so much on visuals, I am somewhat surprised in regard to how much narration this film has.

Through the ages, there have been several movies that have been able to tell a great story while also delivering eye candy. “Star Wars” took me to another galaxy while also presenting the relatable Luke Skywalker. “The Matrix” presents a fun tale of good vs. evil while also showcasing a one of a kind digital landscape. The Academy Award Best Picture winner, “The Shape of Water,” is a beautiful-looking film with an unusual, but still captivating romance. “Avatar: The Way of Water,” finds itself choosing to focus a lot on the film’s background and surroundings to the point where I do not care one bit about the characters in the foreground. Yeah, I know what happens in the movie. But I would flock to a multitude of other movies before this one again because they presented their stories more admirably. I would imagine there are people who are going to leave this movie, much like the original, who would claim they want to live in Pandora. I on the other hand, would not. I would rather live in Middle Earth, where the visuals are just as stunning, but the stories are ten times as interesting.

In the end, “Avatar: The Way of Water” is possibly the biggest disappointment of 2022. Not only because it is James Cameron, not only because the film looks amazing, but because this is a film that was thirteen years in the making. I cannot believe I am living in a year where I have gone back to the cinema to watch “Top Gun: Maverick,” which is a sequel I frankly think was not all that necessary until seeing footage. Meanwhile, I do not think I want to go back to watch “Avatar: The Way of Water” a second time. This is crazy because I have thought about seeing an “Avatar” sequel maybe since I was ten years old. I thought the potential was there. Sadly, the execution was lackluster. But who cares? Sequels are already scheduled, and there is a solid chance that this is going to make a billion, possibly a couple billion bucks at the box office. While the original “Avatar” is similar to titles like “Pocahontas” and “FernGully,” when it came out, it felt like a distinctive title. “Avatar: The Way of Water” not only feels like a slight retread of the original, but somehow comes off as more boring. Does it look pretty? Yes, but so did “Elvis.” If you read my review for that movie, you would know that movies should sometimes do more than just look shiny. That said, “Avatar: The Way of Water” is undoubtedly a technical beast. I applaud Cameron and crew for delivering a solid-looking film. I just wish I could say the same for the story. I am going to give “Avatar: The Way of Water” a 5/10.

“Avatar: The Way of Water” is now playing in theatres everywhere, including formats such as Real-D 3D and IMAX 3D. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Next week I will be sharing my thoughts on the brand new DreamWorks Animation “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish.” I am attending a press screening of the film this Monday, so I will share my thoughts on the film as soon as possible. Hopefully it has more substance than “Avatar: The Way of Water.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Avatar: The Way of Water?” What did you think about it? Or, which film do you think is better? “Avatar” or “Avatar: The Way of Water?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Empire of Light (2022): A Cinematic Projection of Why Community and Connections Matter

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Empire of Light” is directed by Sam Mendes (1917, Spectre) and stars Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Crown), Michael Ward (The A List, The Old Guard), Monica Dolan (A Very English Scandal, Appropriate Adult), Tom Brooke (Preacher, Game of Thrones), Tanya Moodie (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, A Discovery of Witches), Hannah Onslow (This Is Going to Hurt, Ridley Road), Crystal Clarke (Sanditon, Ordeal by Innocence), Toby Jones (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Hunger Games), and Colin Firth (1917, Kingsman: The Secret Service). This film is about a group of people living in 1980s England who work together at a cinema. Two of these people, specifically Hilary, the manager, and Stephen, a recent hire, develop a bond and take their connection to the point of a committed relationship.

There is a saying that Hollywood loves itself. Movies like “La La Land” and “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” highlight such a point. But while those movies are their calendar year’s shining example of “movie about movies” storytelling, 2022 is not short on these kinds of stories. “The Fabelmans,” which is based on Steven Spielberg’s youth, highlights the power of making movies. “Clerks III” doubles as a homage to Kevin Smith’s previous creations while also paying tribute to people want to create a film. I think it also shows how difficult such a process can be, both in front of and behind the camera. “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” which stars Nicholas Cage as himself, pays tribute to various movies he made (and some he did not) while also poking fun at the way certain cinematic stories are told. “See How They Run” features a storyline where people want to turn a play into a motion picture. Later this month, “Babylon,” which is set in old Hollywood, will hit theatres. Some may call it self-indulgent, self-absorbed, or self-obsessed. Based on how I liked all these movies, minus “Babylon,” which I have yet to see, I would call it “writing what you know.” One thing is for sure, Hollywood knows movies.

While “Empire of Light” does not entirely highlight people making movies, it does highlight another important aspect of the filmmaking process, selling the movies. Most of this film takes place at a movie theatre. Not a modern day multiplex like AMC or Regal, but a small venue with a couple screens. The building itself looked beautiful. Similar to how “The Fabelmans” emits a certain magical feeling in regard to filmmaking itself, the cinema here emits an alike feeling to the point where just being inside it feels like an escape from your problems.

Despite being in a digital age where everything is at our fingertips, I am glad we still have movie theaters. In fact, I had the chance to watch “Empire of Light” at the Coolidge Corner Theatre, which if you are not from the Boston area, is a cinema in Brookline, Massachusetts that has some killer Art Deco vibes and a lot of history. It is a great place to see a movie. Watching a movie like this in a theater of that nature, the kind where they open and close the curtains before and after the movie, felt beautifully trippy. The best movies are those that take you to another world, and despite being in an older movie auditorium, I felt like I escaped into another auditorium somewhere else.

Joined by other casting standouts like Michael Ward, Toby Jones, and Colin Firth, “Empire of Light” is led by Olivia Colman, a talented actress who can do no wrong here. Unsurprisingly, she breaks both of her legs in this movie and maybe even a shoulder. I would not be surprised if she receives some chatter this awards season. She portrays Hilary, a cinema manager. From a written perspective, I would say Hilary is a kind of manager I would love to work for. She is competent, occasionally tough, but also fair. In short, she appears to want the best for everyone. Above all, she seems to be in her mojo whenever she happens to be at the cinema. I am kind of jealous of everyone who got to work at the cinema before the 21st century, partially because of what they seemed to provide. Cinemas nowadays still provide a wonderful experience. Also, large formats like Dolby Cinema and IMAX are great ways to enhance blockbuster presentations for example. But there is something about the cinema now, as magical as it is, and yet it seems that some of the magic might have been more evident in a time before Nicole Kidman tried to tell me that heartbreak feels good in a place like this. If I could transport myself to the cinema in this film, I would take the opportunity if it were presented to me.

This leads me to my next ounce of praise, the locations and overall look of the film. Again, the movie theater itself is lovely. It felt massive and at the same time, intimate. The rooftop, especially at night, is ingrained in my memory. There are also some beach scenes that looked crispy. Why should I be surprised? This is from the same director/cinematographer duo who also worked on “1917,” which looked gorgeous in its own right. Now, comparing the two films on a technical level seems unfair as “1917” was designed to look like most of it was done in a single take. But I would say “Empire of Light” is a solid follow-up.

Before I address my problems with the film, another compliment I must give to “Empire of Light” is the sound mix. Following what I said about the magic of the movies, the sound in this movie, is best heard in a theater. The levels could not be better or more immersive. That said, there is one sound I found particularly annoying. Partially because I heard it so many times in other content, but it makes at least seven appearances in this one movie. Do not take my word for it, but gosh does it feel like seven… I do not mind hearing seagulls, but hearing the same seagull sound effect after the fifth time took me out of the film, which is unfortunate considering how immersive the rest of the movie is. I will also address the story. It is not a bad story by any means, but it feels like all sparkle with very little shine. The performances are great, but the writing to support said performances lacks flair at times. I cared for the characters, but I cannot say I was as invested in them as other movies I saw recently.

I often make the assessment that every movie, even unforgivable garbage such as “Morbius,” will always be better in a theater. I will also note there are moments, like certain portions of the score, or one particular repeated sound effect during a scene three quarters of the way through the runtime, that are marvelously hard on the ears and build tension just by becoming the elephant in the room. This film is not as complicated as “Top Gun: Maverick,” but whoever did the sound mixing should be happy with how it came out. If you look at the box office nowadays, you may notice that films that partially rely on spectacle like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” and “Jurassic World: Dominion” are usually the box office kings. Films that are of a tinier caliber like “Vengeance” or “The Fabelmans,” even though they might have have notable people in front of or behind the camera, do not do as well. I am part of the audience who goes to see spectacle fare like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” because the odds are that the big screen experience will be the ultimate way to experience those movies. If you are thinking of waiting to watch “Empire of Light” at home, there is no one stopping you. However, few movies have sounded or looked as good this year given the scale for which this movie aims. There is a reason why Roger Deakins, this film’s director of photography, has 15 Academy Award nominations attached to his name. I would not be surprised, depending on how well this movie does, if he gets nomination 16.

In the end, “Empire of Light” is not my favorite tribute to movies this year, but it is one of the more palatable ones. This has a look to it as attractive as “The Fabelmans,” and as weird as this may be to clarify, not as heartwarming or emotionally charging as “Clerks III.” Despite my slight negatives, I recommend this film. If you have a chance to see “Empire of Light” this weekend, take it. Go out and support this film. Sam Mendes gets a thumbs up from me on his first film after “1917.” I am going to give “Empire of Light” a very high 7/10.

“Empire of Light” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for the upcoming week, because “Avatar: The Way of Water,” finally hits theaters after 13 years of waiting. I already have my tickets for Thursday and I will share my thoughts on the film as soon as possible. These are words part of me never thought I’d say, but here we are. Here is hoping the film is worth the wait, and that it actually has a decent, memorable script this time around. Speaking of “films…” My next review is going to be for a film called “The Mean One.” For those who are not in the know, this is basically a gorier version of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!.” Is this film going to pack in all tons of Christmas spirit? Or did it make me green and icky? Find out in the next review! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Empire of Light?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your movie theater of choice? I am an AMC A-List member, so there are a few AMC locations I usually go to, but one of my favorite places to see a movie is the Sunbrella IMAX at Jordan’s Furniture in Reading, Massachusetts. It is THE place for a big-budget film, and it is also where I will be watching “Avatar: The Way of Water” this Thursday. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!