“Weapons” is directed by Zach Cregger, who also directed the brilliant 2022 horror flick “Barbarian,” and stars Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Julia Garner (The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Ozark), Alden Ehrenreich (Solo: A Star Wars Story, Cocaine Bear), Austin Abrams (This Is Us, The Walking Dead), Cary Christopher (Days of Our Lives, The Rookie), Toby Huss (The Adventures of Pete & Pete, King of the Hill), Benedict Wong (Doctor Strange, Annihilation), and Amy Madigan (Uncle Buck, Gone Baby Gone). In this film, several children wake up at 2:17 a.m. and disappear. Now it is up to a community to come together to figure out why these children vanished.
While not my favorite film of 2022, Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” left me gobsmacked. It is genuinely one of the cleverest horror screenplays I had the privilege of seeing come to life. That said, I really was not sure what his future would hold when it comes to filmmaking.
By the way, where’s the “Barbarian” Blu-ray? Come on, Disney! I thought you wanted my money!
I was not sure what to think going into “Weapons,” partially because I missed out on much of the marketing. I knew this film was coming out. I had people in my circles who were stoked to see it. But I did not know what I would think of it. Then the week of its release, I watched the trailer for the first time. If I were a higher-up for a studio and someone pitched me this film in an elevator, I would probably follow that person out, needing to know more. This is an incredible idea that has translated into quite a good movie.
“Weapons” sucked me in from minute one. This movie only had one chance to make a first impression, and as soon as it started, I figured I was going to get something of the nature of an epic bedtime story. The movie starts off with narration from a child, and I thought having a child narrate was smart partially because of the subject matter, but also because it makes what’s being told much more mysterious and chilling. If an adult were narrating this, I might have more trouble buying it because the subject matter dives into a certain degree of fantasy. But it is perfect the way it is.
The film contains an unbelievable cast, led with excellence by Julia Garner. Safe to say, she is having quite a year for herself between this film and “Fantastic Four.” She might be the star of the summer, and while she was good in “Fantastic Four,” this film allows her to unleash much more of her chops. While she may not have as high of a profile as some of her co-stars such as Josh Brolin or perhaps even Benedict Wong, this film put her on the map for me. I would like to see her in more movies going forward.
“Weapons” is one of the freshest films of the year. Though I will admit, like another highly rated horror film from earlier this year, “Sinners,” I might have to be a party pooper and say “Weapons” is probably not going to end up amongst my favorite films when I do my countdown at the end of 2025. The film has problems and I have the balls to talk about them. There is a concept in this film involving people eating soup. This is really hard to dive into without giving much away, but I’ll give it my best shot. For those who have seen the movie, you likely know what I am talking about. My biggest question, how do the people eating the soup, one, swallow it, and two, digest it? The people eating the soup all have something in common, and that similarity is boggling my mind as to whether they are actually able to eat. I should probably stay calm about this issue. But I am conflicted as to whether it really makes sense.
One of the things I loved about Zach Cregger’s “Barbarian” is how it successfully blended multiple key perspectives without having the end result feel convoluted or jarring. “Weapons” does not do exactly the same thing, but the film commits to something similar. “Weapons” is much heavier in its storytelling. It combines a multitude of perspectives as a large cast takes in the same event playing in front of their eyes in different ways. Some of these perspectives are handled better than others. A lot of these perspectives are blended nicely, but sometimes it is a little unsatisfying to have the moment play out multiple times. The film itself is finely edited, but every once in a while it does feel a little repetitive.
“Weapons” falls into the horror genre, and it does the number one job these movies are supposed to accomplish, delivering on the scares. When I say that, it should be made clear that I would not call “Weapons” terrifying. If anything, it is more tense than it is scary. I am not going to pretend that this film goes over the top with its scares, but it does not mean it does not fail when it comes to the creeps.
The film is also, at times, surprisingly hilarious. I can probably see some of the comedy being a distraction for some people considering quite a bit of the narrative comes off as serious. But this movie has a knack for delivering naturally funny moments. I went to see this film with a small crowd and I was delighted to see quite a few people other than myself letting out a few laughs.
While the movie does have some bumps in the road, I have to admit that the ending is beyond satisfying. It is one of my favorite scenes of the year. Not only does it do a good job at tying all the loose ends but it is simply one of the most well directed scenes in cinema I can recall seeing recently. Everyone on camera gives it their all. There is sometimes a point of view shot that made me feel like I was in the middle of the scene. The ending is a rollercoaster ride worth seeing on the big screen, much like the film as a whole.
In the end, “Weapons” is another decent outing from Zach Cregger. They say you are only as good as your last project, and thankfully, Cregger’s last couple of projects have me looking forward to whatever he has up his sleeve next. The cast of the film unleashes a ton of talent and they all have a great script that does them favors. The film is endlessly intriguing and well-paced despite some minor flaws. Will I watch “Weapons” again? It’s within the realm of possibility. I am in no rush, frankly, but if a friend were at my place and they wanted to put it on, I would not say no. This is a solid flick. I am going to give “Weapons” a 7/10.
“Weapons” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freakier Friday!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Nobody 2,” “Honey Don’t!”, and “Eden.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, be sure to like the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Weapons?” What did you think about it? Or, which Zach Cregger movie did you like more? “Barbarian” or “Weapons?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Accountant 2” is directed by Gavin O’Connor, who also directed this film’s 2016 predecessor. This film stars Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Way Back), Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead, The Punisher), Cynthia Addai-Robinson (Spartacus, Arrow), Daniella Pineda (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, The Originals), and J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Whiplash). This film once again follows Christian Wolff who teams up with his brother, Braxton, to find mysterious assassins.
Before going to see “The Accountant 2” I made an effort to rewatch the original. If you remember my amateurish review you would know that I connected to the film at the time. This was mostly due to how the protagonist was written and executed. Ben Affleck plays an individual who has high functioning autism. I have grown up having many of the traits and quirks that we see from various stages of this character’s life such as his lack of urge to socialize with others. I also thought the film does a good job at providing a humanized portrayal of autism as opposed to a more stereotypical, robotic interpretation.
Is “The Accountant 2” as good as the first one? No, it is not. But is it still worth watching? Perhaps. My biggest problem with this film is that it feels less story-driven and a little more action driven. It’s like the writers listened to Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” and suddenly thought, “We’ve cracked the code!”
Now I have no problem with good action. And to be honest, this movie has some good action. However, the action scenes sometimes lack the oomph of those in the original. Part of it is because the story here is rather convoluted. I am not going to pretend the story in the original riveted me all the way through. The movie relied way too much on flashbacks towards the end to the point of utter boredom. But this sequel at times feels overstuffed.
While the film may be slightly above average, one great thing about it is the chemistry between Christian (Affleck) and Braxton (Bernthal). The film spends lots of time putting these two in the same place, and every scene between them is worth the price of admission. There is a fantastic scene where Bernthal says he wants a dog and Affleck says everything possible to confirm that he is a cat person. The delivery between these two is on point each and every time.
Going back to how I relate to the characters in this franchise, I almost see Christian and Braxton as a personal representation of a conflict that has been circling in my mind nonstop throughout my young adult life. While these two bond as brothers, they have their differences. One key difference between these two is their individual wants in life. We see Braxton as a lone wolf, which I have always been throughout most of my life. If he puts his mind to something, he does it. He works on his own terms. But then we find out a little bit about Christian, who would like to have a partner he can check in on every once in a while. In this way, Christian, is a little more than meets the eye. You would not expect someone of his mannerisms to be interested in a relationship, but I buy his desire. As I watched this film I thought these character differences represented my personal yin and yang. Do I love being alone? Quite a bit, actually. But do I want someone to check in on? A part of me thinks about it every day.
Speaking of conflicts, I have a conflicting opinion regarding Christian Wolff in this film. Starting with the positives, I genuinely think Ben Affleck put a lot of effort into his performance and he is a standout as the character. Although some of the choices that were made in regard to the character threw me off. I get that Wolff has autism, but he comes off as a robot in this film, especially in comparison to the original. If anything, Wolff is sometimes a lackluster stereotype for people on the spectrum. For some reason, some of his line delivery and choice of words lack authenticity. I would not say that this film paints autism in the worst light, but sometimes his performance, particularly through his onslaught of stoicism, is overly emphasized. Sure, in the original, Wolff may be a bit robotic, but he also has a heart as well as feelings. In this sequel, he sounds more like the T-800. Sure, Affleck is not entirely robotic. When paired with Bernthal in this film, the two seem like genuine brothers. But if I were to judge Affleck by himself, he is sometimes soulless. Again, this is not an incompetent performance. I just think a little more depth and pizzazz could have been added to it.
“The Accountant 2” is not a movie I can see myself renting or buying to watch on my own schedule. To me, it is a cable movie. It is a movie that I would watch on a Sunday at home and eventually rely on for background noise. Now whether this movie will ever end up on cable is another story. The film is from Amazon after all and I doubt they want anybody leaving Prime or whatever the heck MGM+ is. Seriously, who uses MGM+? Anyone? If you have not seen the original “Accountant,” I much recommend that film over this one. It moves at a better pace, is less convoluted, and honestly does a much better job at characterization than the sequel. I enjoyed getting to know Christian Wolff not only through his profession but as someone who is on the spectrum. I thought the flashbacks during that film, most of them anyway, were used to its benefit. Like this sequel, the original has some decent action, but I cared more about what happened during those action scenes based on what I was learning about Christian as a character at the time. The sequel’s action is not bad, but it suffers from inferior character progression as well as storytelling. If it were not for the perfect chemistry between Affleck and Bernthal, I do not think I would be lending as much praise to this film.
In the end, “The Accountant 2” has its ups and downs. There are other recent films I would recommend watching before this one, especially in the action genre. Although if you are simply looking for good action, you will find it here. But this film is not a full meal. It satisfies in some ways and leaves a little to be desired in others. Do not get me wrong, Ben Affleck does not do a bad job in this film, and neither does Jon Bernthal. But I would not rush to see this film right away. I am going to give “The Accountant 2” a 6/10.
“The Accountant 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to stream on Prime Video.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bring Her Back,” “Friendship,” “Ballerina,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” and “The Life of Chuck.” 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 Accountant 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Accountant” films do you like better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Sinners” is directed by Ryan Coogler (Creed, Black Panther) and stars Michael B. Jordan (Creed, Black Panther), Hailee Steinfeld (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Hawkeye), Miles Caton, Jack O’Connell (Back to Black, Skins), Wunmi Mosaku (Moses Jones, Vera), Jayme Lawson (How to Blow Up a Pipeline, The Batman), Omar Miller (Ballers, CSI: Miami), and Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods, The Good Fight). This film is about two criminal twin brothers who start over in their hometown, only to discover that a greater evil is about to welcome them back.
I have been eager to see “Sinners” since the first trailer dropped last year. It did not explain a ton, but like a lot of good first trailers, it gave “enough” to sell me. And that is putting things lightly. Because I thought it was very well put together. The film had a lot to like behind the scenes. Michael B. Jordan playing two roles… Other great cast members like Hailee Steinfeld in the supporting roles… Ryan Coogler in the director’s chair… Things were lining up perfectly. And to later find out that the film was shot on IMAX cameras, I could not be more in if I tried. The hype I had for this film was through the roof. So was it worth the excitement? To a certain degree, yes.
This might shock some of you, “Sinners” is not necessarily my favorite film of the year so far. If I had to be honest, I think it had some minor pacing issues and I cannot say I walked out of the theater remembering every single character’s name. I was engaged with the film, but I have seen better this year when it comes to the story. It is hard to say the film is overrated though. I can totally see why other people would consider it to be a masterpiece. I do want to watch the film again at some point, and I genuinely think it would benefit from a second viewing.
That said, I think when it comes to pure experiences, there are few that compare to “Sinners.” For the record, I saw this film in IMAX 70mm, meaning I was able to experience “Sinners” in the most definitive way possible, with the finest detail and clearest sound, so there were definitely some enhancements. Regardless of however you see “Sinners,” do so on the biggest screen you can.
This film is shot entirely on 65mm film, some of it in IMAX. Every frame of this film looks immaculate. Several shots might as well be a painting. This movie also makes history, as it is also the first film shot in IMAX by a woman. Autumn Durald Arkapaw is behind the camera for this project and there is so much to love about how she handled the end product. Many of the exterior shots in particular are going to linger in my mind throughout the year.
Much like another one of Ryan Coogler’s films, “Black Panther,” “Sinners” is a great time. Also like “Black Panther,” this is a film perhaps best suited for Ryan Coogler’s voice. This is a film that I, a straight white male, would probably sully if I were to write or direct it myself. There is a sense of pride in each scene, each shot, each line, and that is because of Coogler’s touch. He clearly knows what he is doing. If you remember “Black Panther,” one of my favorite moments from that film is this one action scene in a casino where the camera navigates between levels to get a solid view of different things that are going down. I thought it was a flawless one take scene, but without going into detail, there is a one take scene during this film that might surpass that moment if you ask me when it comes to execution.
Not too surprisingly, I am quite impressed with the film’s cast. Of course, you have a talented actor in Michael B. Jordan who plays not just one, but two roles. He does a good job here. Both of his characters have charisma. Despite some differences, the two twins genuinely feel like the same person at times. That might have been the point because watching these two reminded me of my own interactions with twins in real life. Mainly because as much as I have built a bond with some of them, I will admit, despite them wearing different outfits and letting off slightly different mannerisms, it is occasionally hard to tell which one is which unless you are digging for certain features.
From mainstay talent to young talent, this film is also the acting debut of Miles Caton. After seeing this film, I am convinced that Caton is going to have a great career. Now he is at the helm of a terrific director, so part of his on-screen talent may be owed to Ryan Coogler. Even so, seeing what I have seen of him in this movie, it shocks me that this is his first role. If anything I would figure he would have a few under his belt. Maybe they were never documented on his IMDb page, I do not know.
While I cannot see it winning an Academy Award, the standout performance for me in this film is Hailee Steinfeld as Mary. I think of all the characters in this movie, she is the one written in the sense that allows for the most range. If you have seen the trailer, you can probably get a sense of where this character is going, where the narrative takes her. But when it gets to “that” point, it is satisfying. I have seen Hailee Steinfeld in other projects, but this is arguably the most fun she has been on screen. It is not my favorite role of Steinfeld’s, but if I were to determine which role of hers appears to be the most fun, I think it comes down to “Sinners” and “The Edge of Seventeen.”
“Sinners” is a vampire movie, and it is a good vampire movie at that. But it kind of gives you a little bit more than just vampires. It takes on concepts such as brotherly connections, music, and then it goes ahead and plops in vampires as a bonus. And when it gets to the vampires, it is a treat. The film has its scary moments. It has its fun moments. The action during the vampire-centered scenes is very well done. This is a film that if you are to see it, try do so on the big screen. The music in the film is also attention-grabbing from the foot-tappable soundtrack to Ludwig Göransson’s admirable score.
If I had anything else to say, and I hate to say this, but I will be real, I am going to remember this film more for its second half than its first. For me, this film took a bit to get going, and I do mean a bit. But when it gets into gear, it goes at lightspeed. That said, the entire film is worth watching. Check it out.
In the end, “Sinners” is a thumbs up. It is another solid outing from director Ryan Coogler. If the Oscars were tomorrow, I could totally see “Sinners” getting some awards attention, especially in the technical categories like film editing and cinematography. But again, I do want to emphasize that this film is one that starts off okay but gets better as it goes. I do not want to confuse anybody. I never said this film was bad, but the second half is much more inviting to me than the first. I might be alone in this statement. I have talked to friends who say that this film is peak cinema. If anything, I think it is a fine movie. I would watch it again. And I will say this again, maybe it would benefit from a second watch. I am going to give “Sinners” a 7/10.
“Sinners” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Marvel’s latest project, “Thunderbolts*!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Rust,” “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” and “The Accountant 2.” If you want to see my thoughts on these films 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 “Sinners?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite film directed by Ryan Coogler? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A Minecraft Movie” is directed by Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite, Nacho Libre) and stars Jason Momoa (Aquaman, Slumberland), Jack Black (Kung Fu Panda, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle), Danielle Brooks (Peacemaker, Orange is the New Black), Emma Myers (A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder, Wednesday), Sebastian Hansen (Lisey’s Story, Just Mercy), and Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, The White Lotus). This film is based on the “Minecraft” video game and is about a group of people who find themselves inside the mysterious “Overworld.” Together, they must use their imaginations to survive and make it back home.
If there is a movie coming out this year I could not possibly be less excited about, it is “A Minecraft Movie.” I have never played “Minecraft.” However, I have seen tons of gameplay of it either through family, friends, or on YouTube when I am looking for something to fall asleep to. The game came out just before I was a teenager, but I was never one of the cool kids playing it. It was never my thing. If I were to play a building game as a kid, chances are it would have been “Mall Tycoon.”
In fact, I largely avoided “A Minecraft Movie” when it first came out due to competition. I wanted to see “The Luckiest Man in America,” which came out the same weekend. I still had not seen “Novocaine.” I was lucky to catch it in theaters while I still could. I ended up seeing “A Minecraft Movie” a couple weeks into its run with a friend of mine, who is clearly more into the game than I. Frankly, they seem to be much more into the movie than I as well. Whereas they seemed to be having a ball with everything in front of them, I was cringing beyond belief.
While video game adaptations seem to be getting better with movies like “Sonic the Hedgehog” and TV shows like “The Last of Us,” “A Minecraft Movie” fails to meet the standards of those two projects. Heck, even “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” one of the most by the numbers hero’s journey stories in years, was more memorable. Granted, unlike “A Minecraft Movie,” I actually played the “Super Mario” games. So there could be some bias.
Thankfully though, this adaptation is a slight improvement over last year’s “Borderlands,” which despite a decent cast, is an intolerable mess. Aside from being bad, “Borderlands” and “A Minecraft Movie” share some similarities. As much as I was not a fan of the way both films are presented through their artificial-looking backdrops, they do seem to implement some key elements from their respective games. “A Minecraft Movie” is full of blocky textures, from buildings to weapons to even some of the characters. It does not change the fact that some of these textures fail to please the eye. The movie sometimes presents its Overworld as a place of wonder, but I never felt that as a viewer. It had an uncanny valley effect at times. It felt like something inside “Ready Player One,” except in that film’s virtual world, just about everything was distinctly animated whereas the Overworld often serves as a hybrid between live-action and animation. I questioned the filmmakers’ decision from the start to make this film live-action, and seeing some of the Overworld on screen makes me feel justified for reacting the way I did. What were they thinking?!
I am not a huge fan of the blocky graphics “Minecraft” tends to use in their games, but they are still undeniably unique. If you presented “Minecraft” to someone in the 1990s who was in the middle of playing “Super Mario 64,” and say this is coming out more than a decade later, they could think that video game graphics regressed heavily over the years. But the graphics are still a part of the “Minecraft” brand. I understand this is an adaptation, but the movie just looks off-putting. If I had one positive, if we are going by symbolism, the contrast between the people from the real world and the Overworld is distinct. Perhaps this distinction is an artistic choice. But if I want art, I will simply go watch paint dry.
Going back to “Borderlands,” another similarity that film has with “A Minecraft Movie” is that Jack Black appears in both projects. And just like “Borderlands,” Jack Black basically plays a cartoon. In some ways, Jack Black’s character, Steve, reminds me of my dad. He is pretty expressive, spends lots of time building things, and sings during the most random occasions. Although unlike my dad, I found Steve’s singing to be annoying and nonsensical. There are multiple instances where Steve sings. Not all of them impressed me. There is one song towards the film’s conclusion that I found mildly decent, but other than that, they were headache-inducing.
By the way, I have no idea how many people would be surprised by this, Steve is not exactly what one would call the main character of this film. Sure, the film is sometimes presented from his first-person perspective, but there is also a huge gap where he basically disappears. So, the question is, who is the main character?
Your guess is as good as mine.
The film starts with Steve yearning for the mines and later discovering the Overworld, until we eventually spend some time in the real world with a couple young adults, a retro gamer, a realtor, and some other faces.
In the real world, much of the screen time is dedicated to the young adults, who happen to be a brother-sister duo. The sister, Natalie (left) is raising her brother, Henry (right center) while trying to hold a job at a chip factory. The brother means well, but his creative mind seems to get him in trouble. If you were to break this movie down structurally, one can argue the brother is the main character as his arc tends to show him being creative and embarrassing himself in the real world, but having much better luck with such creativity in the Overworld. By the film’s conclusion, the script tries to implement an epilogue for each character, but sometimes they feel half-baked based on the little substance their characters are given during the runtime.
Sticking to the real world, there are a couple characters who come from there who caught my attention from their first appearance – Jason Momoa as Garret Garrison (right), and Jennifer Coolidge as Vice Principal Marlene.
I said earlier that Jack Black basically plays a cartoon, but whereas his performance felt overdone, Jason Momoa had an animated energy that kept me captivated. He plays a game store owner who endlessly brags about a particular accomplishment he made in his career, but ultimately, he comes off as a has-been. Momoa gives 110% with every line, no matter how idiotic.
Warner Bros
Then you have Jennifer Coolidge’s character. She is not in the movie for long, but by the end, she is unhinged. I am not going to pretend her character was perfect. In fact, you could almost write Coolidge out of the film entirely and it would have little to no real effect on the main story. Does it change the fact that her material was mildly entertaining? No. I will admit, Coolidge oozed personality at times. I will also note that this is a film mainly aimed at children, but Coolidge’s character does utter some mature phrases and act out some equally mature scenarios. I think the teenagers might understand what she is doing. The children? Hard to say. Hard to know in this digital age.
“A Minecraft Movie” has five writers. This film is the textbook definition of too many cooks in the kitchen. Again, when it comes to naming a main character, the film is almost confused in who that ultimately is. Maybe I would be more forgiving if all the characters were likable, but several of them were dull or flat out irritating to watch. By the film’s conclusion, the atmosphere honestly feels as bloated as one of the Michael Bay “Transformers” movies.
My experience of watching “A Minecraft Movie” reminded me of when I saw “Avengers: Infinity War” in the theater for the first time. During both screenings, there was no shortage of people applauding and cheering at various points. Although there is a difference between the two experiences. The age range for my “Infinity War” screening skewed more adult, whereas “A Minecraft Movie” had noticeably more kids. I was also not one of the people cheering. Granted, some of the applause breaks were for in-game references, which I would not fully understand anyway. I was not the target audience for those jokes. But one reason why I was not applauding as much as the people around me is because I was not as engaged as they were with the film. I wonder if I would be clapping more if I played the game. I wish I could share the same passion about this film that seemed to be beaming throughout the rest of the auditorium, but I was bored. There is no way around it.
Although I will say, even though my audience seemed to applaud at certain points either out of pure contagion or simply for the sake of doing so, one positive thing about my experience is that no one threw food. On that note, “Chicken Jockey” got a lot of fanfare.
With that in mind, it leads me to something I typically say about movies. Just because the children end up liking it, does not automatically indicate that I had equally as positive of an experience and will therefore give the movie a positive score. There are good movies that are “made for kids.” “A Minecraft Movie” is not one of them. Go watch a Pixar movie or a Studio Ghibli movie if you want a fine example of masterclass visual storytelling. This is just visual noise. Heck, if you want a great commercialized film that kids and adults can enjoy, go watch “The LEGO Movie!” Who would have thought a movie on plastic building blocks would become a beloved hit? Go watch “A Minecraft Movie” and “The LEGO Movie” back to back and tell me which one you think is better. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.
In the end, there is not enough TNT in the Overworld to destroy my memories of experiencing “A Minecraft Movie.” This is a film that I imagine that the people making it will probably be happy to have on their resume, likely because it was popular, and not necessarily because it was good. If you are looking for cinema, look elsewhere. This is not the worst video game movie of all time. I just find a lot of choices in the final product to be questionable. Everything from casting Jack Black as Steve to the uncanny valley-esque live-action style choice to the paint by numbers narrative. I do not play the “Minecraft” game that much. It does not interest me. But I imagine I could have a more pleasant hour and a half playing the game as opposed to watching the movie that it inspired. I am going to give “A Minecraft Movie” a 3/10.
“A Minecraft Movie” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Sinners,” “Thunderbolts*,” “Rust,” “The Ruse,” and “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Minecraft Movie?” What did you think about it? Or, have you ever played “Minecraft?” Is it fun? Let me know down below! Scene Before is click to the flicks!
“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is directed by Kenji Kamiyama (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Blade Runner: Black Lotus) and stars Brian Cox (Succession, X2: X-Men United), Gaia Wise (A Walk in the Woods, The Chelsea Detective), Luke Pasqualino (Skins, The Musketeers), and Miranda Otto (Talk to Me, War of the Worlds). This film is set 183 years before the original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy and is about the tale of Helm Hammerhand (Cox) and how his family went about defending themselves against an army of Dunlendings.
Just a warning for those who need to know… I have not read a single “Lord of the Rings” book. I have not lacked desire to read the books, I just never got around to it. But I have seen every single Peter Jackson-directed “Lord of the Rings” film, including “The Hobbit” trilogy. I enjoyed all those movies. There are even a couple of those movies I would even considerto be amongst the greatest of all time. If you have not seen these movies, you are missing out and owe it to yourself to give them a watch at least once in your life.
It has been ten years since the last theatrically released “Lord of the Rings” film, specifically “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.” As a fan of these movies, I thought they had a good run, but I would have been fine knowing that is all we were getting. I am well aware on the TV side, “The Rings of Power” is doing well on Prime Video in terms of finding an audience after a couple seasons, but I cannot give my thoughts on it since I have not seen a single episode. Though when they announced a new animated “Lord of the Rings” film was coming, I was not against the idea, but my reaction to it reminds me of the reaction I had when I first heard about “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.” My thought was… “Okay then.” I was not completely uninterested, but I also was not going to be first in line to check it out.
Then I got the recommendation of my life, and I swear on my unborn children, this is a true story.
I went to a taping of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” in October and during a Q&A, Colbert picked me to ask him a question. I was one of three people. I asked him, “Have you seen any good movies lately?” To which he responds, “Yes.”
…
Following the audience’s laughter, he asks, “Would you like to know which ones?”
I say, “If you would like to tell me about them.”
That is when he recommends this movie. He saw it early. This is no surprise considering Colbert has established himself as a J.R.R. Tolkien and “Lord of the Rings” fanboy. He told the audience and I that the film matches the feel that he got out of the Tolkien books and the Peter Jackson films. Granted, I was aware that he was going to be hosting a panel for the film at New York Comic Con the next day, so this may as well be a plug for the movie.
That said, if it was good enough for Stephen Colbert, it was good enough for me.
So without dillydallying any longer, I thought the movie was fine.
As far as “The Lord of the Rings” film franchise goes, I think this is the weakest of the films I have seen so far. This is not to say it is bad. If anything it is just that most of the other ones are so good that this film easily pales in comparison to them. It is like when I watched “Lightyear.” I thought almost every “Toy Story” movie was a masterpiece of animation and storytelling, then we get to the “Lightyear” spinoff, which was fun but it did not have the impact on me that the “Toy Story” movies did.
I will admit, Colbert was correct on one thing. Tonally, this film feels like it belongs in Jackson’s Middle-earth. That said, it does so maybe to an unhealthy degree. The film is a nice welcoming back to that universe with the familiar title cards and Howard Shore’s music. For the record, Howard Shore did not do the music for this movie, it was instead composed by Stephen Gallagher, who I thought did an okay job. I am not going to go back to listen to the score on my own time unlike some of Shore’s work, but I thought it fit the movie. There are also some pieces of fan service that have ties to the Jackson films, including one towards the end that involves someone’s voice that audiences have not heard in a new film for a long, long time. I thought it was a clever addon towards the film’s conclusion.
“The War of the Rohirrim” is done in the style of an anime. You have this colorful 2D look to the film with a rough pace to it. When I watched the trailer for this film previously, I thought it looked cool. Having seen the movie, I would say it is cool to a degree, but also kind of underwhelming. There are many scenes where we see some vibrant colors, finely detailed characters, and some nice landscapes. But there are other scenes that either lack detail, feel slapped together, done on the cheap, or flat. They lack a sense of realism. Now I know you can get away with a lack of realism in animation. But this lack of realism honestly equals a lack of flair at times.
The same can be said for the actual journey of the film and what we see our hero, specifically Hera, go through. I will give credit for the film for one thing, nearly each and every scene, even if it is subtle, oozes with conflict. Who is gonna live? Who is gonna die? Will our hero make it? The film is a lot of things, but uneventful is not one of them. Speaking of Hera, Gaia Wise does a great job voicing her. Wise’s resume is not huge, but I would not mind seeing her in more projects. Though as I watched the movie, the progression of the story seemed to lack unpredictability or a sense of originality. The structure feels familiar. Granted, even the better “Lord of the Rings” films are not that complex when it comes to the plot as they are with the world involving said plot. Most of the films are essentially about the characters navigating from point A to point B. This is not as much the case with “The War of the Rohirrim,” which spends most of its time around one specific portion of Middle Earth. The scope feels a bit smaller. But the earlier films were simply much more well executed in terms of bringing the best out of a familiar journey. Not to mention, for the time they came out, Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films had monumental special effects, whereas the animation for this film, while definitely different, lacks innovation.
“The War of the Rohirrim” is a standalone “Lord of the Rings” project. There are no continuations planned for it. By that logic, this should make “The War of the Rohirrim” a good watch in the franchise if you do not want to worry about keeping up with the greater lore. While this is true, I will also say if you are a more casual “Lord of the Rings” fan or someone looking for a place to start, I do not think “The War of the Rohirrim” is a priority. Is it a good movie? Yes. If anything, while the negatives stand out, I think I lean a little more positive when it comes to my overall verdict. While Hera’s journey has cliches, it is still engaging. The soundwork for the film is quite solid. Tonally, this film is very good. If you love Brian Cox’s voice, you will hear plenty of it in this film. Every time Cox speaks as Helm Hammerhand, he steals the scene. If you are a “Lord of the Rings” casual, there is a chance you might walk out of the movie thinking it is a thumbs up. If you are perhaps a more hardcore fan of the franchise, there could be something more for you. But I also think most people who watch this movie will end up saying that it is not as good as any of the films in Jackson’s original “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. As for ranking this film against “The Hobbit” trilogy, I am not sure. I know it has its fans, and I am one of them. I personally find “Desolation of Smaug” to be one of my favorite movies. But if it were a Friday night, I ordered a pizza, and I needed a movie to go with it, I might put on “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” which I thought to be the weakest of the “Lord of the Rings” installments for a long time, before watching “The War of the Rohirrim” again.
Although speaking of “An Unexpected Journey,” this brings me to a negative I sometimes found with both that film and “The War of the Rohirrim.” As engaged as I was in the journey, I wish I found myself more attached to some of the characters. I do not think I am going to remember some of these characters’ names a couple years from now. If you want a good movie, watch “The War of the Rohirrim.” But if you are looking for the best possible “Lord of the Rings” experience, Peter Jackson might have some better options available.
In the end, “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” was a fine time at the movies, especially compared to the film this one opened against, “Kraven the Hunter.” Both of these films are flops at this point. Neither of them likely have any chance of making their budgets back. But if you had to pick between one of these losers to watch in the cinema right now, then “The War of the Rohirrim” is definitely the winner. The film is a fun adventure that sometimes comes off as cliche. Some of these cliches are handled well, others not so much. The cast is likable, even if I am probably not going to remember some of these characters in a couple years. The action scenes have their moments. And for the most part, I was engaged in the journey. This film is not playing in a ton of places right now, but if you have a cinema loyalty subscription like AMC A-List or Regal Unlimited, use it for this film. Either that or find a showtime at matinee price. Even though I think the film looks cheap at times, the sound design makes up for it. There are moments where the film does become wonderfully obnoxious and immersive. I am going to give “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” a 6/10.
“The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim” is now playing in theaters and is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” “Flow,” “Nosferatu,” and “Babygirl.” 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 Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power?” For those who have seen it, tell me your thoughts! Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Red One” is directed by Jake Kasdan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Sex Tape) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Central Intelligence, Moana), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, Knives Out), Lucy Liu (Charlie’s Angels, Strange World), and J.K. Simmons. This film showcases what happens when Santa’s bodyguard (Johnson) and a hacker (Evans) team up to find and rescue Saint Nick himself after he has been kidnapped.
There are two words that define “Red One” for me. And no, they are not “red” or “one.” The two words that have consistently stayed in my head regarding “Red One” just so happen to be “it’s fine.” It is that middle of the road utterance you give to someone when you are trying not to hurt their feelings, but you also do not want to overblow your emotions and put on a performance. What did I think of the first “Red One” trailer? Eh, it’s fine. What did I think of the second trailer? I mean, it’s fine I guess. Looks fun enough. I was entertained by both of them. They both made me curious about the film. But I am not going to pretend it boosted my excitement in the same way that Marvel’s “Thunderbolts*” did, which took me from a concept I felt rather indifferent about, to immediately demanding at least five or so minutes of more footage.
I will be real, if you were to measure my excitement for “Red One,” it would be somewhere in the middle. I cannot pretend I have massive expectations for this film, but there are promising elements to behold. I liked the whole spy action vibe the film was promising, where the objective for our two recognizable leads is to rescue Santa Claus. “Violent Night” recently showed you can make a cool modern action flick with a Christmas backdrop, so maybe “Red One” would result in something similar.
Not to beat a dead horse… But “Red One” is, well, what other description can I possibly give?! It’s fine! If they come out with a DVD for this film, please note how I said if, not when, because this movie is an Amazon production. But if they come out with a DVD for “Red One,” you might as well take the two words I just said, “It’s fine,” and put that quote on the bottom of the cover. I bet that will make a great addition to the Walmart $5 bin. Do those bins even exist anymore? Asking for a friend.
I have heard this comparison before, but I think there is almost no better way to pitch this film to someone. “Red One” is practically a movie within a movie. It is a movie that you would make that purely exists within the universe of another film, or even say a TV show. This is the kind of movie that would exist in an episode of “The Big Bang Theory,” Penny would have to pitch the concept to her friends after she reads the script only to pause for audience laughter. The concept sounds goofy enough, but putting actors as notable as Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans in the lead roles? It is a perfect recipe for a two minute gag in a coming of age comedy. But this movie is not two minutes. It is more than two hours. And it packs quite a bit into the runtime. Some of it lands, some of it does not. But it is hard for me to say that there was a lot in the movie that gave me a particularly strong reaction. Not much made me overly irate. Not much made me giddy with glee. That said, there are things that stood out to me about the film.
One positive I have about the film is how much lore they put into the mythology of Christmas, the North Pole, Santa Claus, or even other mysterious beings. The film undoubtedly puts a creative twist on handling what we tend to know as mythology.
That said, this film’s interpretation of the North Pole is both creative and underwhelming at the same time. For my “Star Wars” fans out there, it is basically the midichlorians of North Pole interpretations. When I think of the North Pole based on how I imagined it as a kid and what I have seen through media, I have always interpreted it as this whimsy, magical place. But a couple of the first things I notice when we get to the North Pole are a semi-depressing color scheme and drones flying. Sure, maybe drones can be magical… But when I look at the drones they have no poppy color to them, no pizzazz, and they honestly look like something you’d find in a store. The North Pole does not look as fun or magical as other interpretations. If anything it looks kind of bland. I get that the movie is a spy action thriller, and I like parts of what they are going for. But the North Pole is not one of them.
I also want to note something to families looking to see this film. I will not spoil anything considering the movie is new, but the movie opens with some material I think certain children should not be seeing. Also, this scene does set up the rest of the film, but I also think that scene would have been a better set up to a different story. For the record, the scene features a younger version of Chris Evans’ character, Jack O’Malley, and shows him doing something he probably should not be doing. We see this develop into something else in the long term, but I would love to see how this would have paid off in a shorter term. Perhaps hours, days, or even a year after Jack commits to his actions. Again, I will not go into detail. I think it would have spiraled into a movie that would have been much more fun than the one we got.
The holiday season is full of new films with great performances, many of which get nominated for Oscars, Critics Choice Awards, SAGs, and so on. “Red One” is not one of those movies. In fact it is not even close. Yes, there are competent performances on the supporting end. There is nothing totally anger-inducing, yet there is also not really much to write home about. With that in mind, if you were to ask me what I want for Christmas this year? It would for this movie to have two significantly better lead performances.
I am not going to pretend that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is the greatest actor of all time. Though I would not doubt his charisma gets him by from one movie to the next. That said, after several outings, he almost seems to do the same song and dance every other time. Yeah, maybe the “Jumanji” movies showcase his skills sometimes because he has to play other people simulating him. But when I look at movies like “Skyscraper,” “Rampage,” “Red Notice,” or this latest one, he seems to be playing some variation of himself. In some of these movies, even if he does not give an Oscar-worthy performance, he at least has a positive presence. The same can be said for “Red One” in certain scenes. I liked all the scenes between Johnson’s character, Callum Drift, and Santa Claus, played nicely by J.K. Simmons. But for various portions of the film, Johnson came off as if he was just playing the hits, but giving a tired version of them. The performance is not that inviting. It feels been there, done that. Does Johnson look like he wants to be on set? The way the movie is presented certainly makes him look that way. But I am willing to bet whenever he smiled on screen, that smile came with the knowledge that he would soon be getting a good chunk of the movie’s $250 million dollar budget.
Yeah… There is no way this movie cost $250 million. There are definitely a lot of special effects and things going on in each frame, but there is no way this is movie cost as much to make as “The Dark Knight Rises…”
Speaking of people who probably got paid a crapton of money for their presence in the film, let’s talk about Chris Evans! I love Chris Evans. Of course I have enjoyed watching him as Captain America, but even in movies I did not enjoy, I still think Evans ends up being a highlight. Personally, he was the best part of that forgettable Netflix movie, “The Gray Man.” But as far as Evans goes, his performance belongs on the naughty list. Though I would not entirely blame Chris Evans. While he may appear to be sleepwalking in the film from time to time, the script does him almost no favors. His character is about as one-dimensional as a ragdoll in “G-Mod.” Every other moment with Evans is just him acting bewildered or mind-blown. He is clearly playing the fish out of water role, but such a trait brings nothing interesting to the table as far as this project is concerned. Other than trying to get what he wants when he wants it, being a lame fish out of water might as well be Jack’s entire personality. Well, those aspects in addition to perving out on Wonder Woman.
As for the action in this film, I am surprised to say that there are some standout scenes. There are a couple minutes inside of Jack O’Malley’s apartment where he fends off tons of people at once. I thought the choreography in that scene was really good. There is a creative moment in the film involving Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots. While I thought the scene itself was average, I did like one confrontation between Jack O’Malley and a giant snowman that turns its head like a Terminator when placed on a burning grill. But I cannot pretend I was that riveted by any of the action scenes. If anything I was amused by them, but to say I was wowed would be a hyperbole.
This is not necessarily an action scene as much as it is a face off, but there is a fantastic scene where our heroes come face to face with Krampus. There is a perfectly paced few minutes where Krampus and one of the characters are going one on one in the creature’s own game. It is quite entertaining. Sadly, I cannot say most of the movie is just as thrilling. By the way, for a movie full of visuals that would make you think it is a forgotten project from the late 2000s, early 2010s, I have to say the look for Krampus is a great display of practical effects. He looks great!
Theoretically, “Red One” is a movie that seems to be made to entertain or satisfy just about every person who would see it. But that is also where the film has a drawback. It tries to be dozens of things at once to the point where it does not really seem to know who exactly it is for. Is it for action junkies? Is it for people who like Christmas movies? Is it for people who like “The Rock?” Is it for people looking for a bit of a family dynamic? Will teens like it? Does it have enough for the kiddos? The movie throws a bunch of things at the wall. Some may stick, but not like superglue. Sure, “Red One” has action, but it is not the most innovative or exciting of the year. Yes, this movie has a Christmas backdrop, but lacks a sense of spirit or magic. Of course, “The Rock” is in the movie, but I would say he has had better performances and scripts to work with. There is a family dynamic but it almost lingers in the background. Certain teens would probably get behind some of the spectacle-based scenes but to call this movie the most spectacular-looking of the year when “Dune: Part Two” and “Twisters” exist would be generous. Kids could also be entertained by the adventure, but there are some things in this film that I imagine their parents would not want them to see.
When you break it down, “Red One” tries to be for everybody, but embraces its elements so minimally or poorly to the point where the movie is arguably for nobody. If you want to watch a movie from this year that so brilliantly speaks to several demographics, one that comes to mind would probably be “The Fall Guy.” For those looking for holiday cheer, you might be disappointed. Maybe some younger viewers should stay away from the film too. But for those looking for ludicrous action, charismatic stars, great music, an engaging love story, and a fun adventure, it is one of the year’s best flicks. I cannot say “Red One” is the movie equivalent to a lump of coal, but watching the movie at times sort of feels similar to going into my stocking on Christmas morning and finding a toothbrush. It works, but it might not exactly be what I am looking for.
In the end, “Red One” is as the kids say, mid. It is not great, not terrible. Just okay. Do I feel like my time was wasted watching “Red One?” Probably not. Will I watch it again in the future? Also probably not. But “Red One” is not worthy of the same applause that certain Christmas classics continue to get today. Movies like “Home Alone” or “Elf” or if you want to talk about something from this decade, I would say “Red One” does not even hold a candle to “The Holdovers.” If you are having company over during the holidays and need background noise on the television, “Red One” is somewhat serviceable. But you could also do a lot better. I am going to give “Red One” a 5/10.
“Red One” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Red One?” What did you think about it? Or, are there any Christmas movies you watch once a year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.
Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.
I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”
There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.
I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.
It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.
I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.
Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.
You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.
Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.
But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.
Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.
For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.
There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.
The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.
For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.
This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.
In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is directed by Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and stars Michael Keaton (Batman, Spider-Man: Homecoming), Winona Ryder (Little Women, The Age of Innocence), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Schitt’s Creek), Justin Theroux (The Girl on the Train, The LEGO Ninjago Movie), Monica Bellucci (The Passion of the Christ, The Matrix Reloaded) Jenna Ortega (Wednesday, Jane the Virgin), and Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse). This film is the sequel to the 1988 film “Beetlejuice” and follows the Deetz family as three generations return home to Winter River. Meanwhile, Lydia Deetz’s life turns upside down when her daughter, Astrid, accidentally opens the portal to the Afterlife.
Much like this summer’s “Twisters,” I perhaps got around to “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” out of pure luck. Why? Much like the original “Twister,” I only saw the original “Beetlejuice” once. And I managed to watch 1996’s “Twister” just days before its follow-up released. The same can also be said for 1988’s “Beetlejuice.” As for my thoughts on that original film, I found it to be clever and it occasionally delivered a few chuckles. The production design and costumes are also pretty good. But it is not my favorite Tim Burton movie. That said, I did watch the marketing for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” and was somewhat captivated by it, even before seeing the original film. It looked like a good time, funny, and aesthetically pleasing.
For the record, I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” on its opening weekend in September. One of the first positives I can say about “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” and this is a timely one, is that it set the mood for spooky season. I love fall. I love this time of year. Especially as someone who lives in New England and has high standards for foliage. One tree’s trash is another man’s treasure. Speaking of my mood, this movie starts off by putting me in a good one. While the movie feels somewhat updated compared to the original, it is easy to tell it is part of the same universe, and it all starts with the intro credits. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” starts off in the best possible way it can. It kicks things off pretty similar to the original, where you have the opening credits, a series of nice-looking shots, and Danny Elfman’s awesome music booming in the background. It is very much a successful welcome back to this universe similar to how “Top Gun: Maverick” welcomed audiences back a couple years ago with some similar musical choices to its original counterpart.
Much like the original, Michael Keaton steals the show as Beetlejuice. He is funny, over the top, and gives it his all in the role. This is Keaton’s latest long-awaited comeback as a character he played in the 1980s. You may recall he reprised his role as Batman last year in “The Flash.” While I did not despise Keaton as Batman in “The Flash,” Keaton shines much brighter this time around as Beetlejuice. He is delightfully kooky and captures my attention every second he is on screen.
While this movie does see the return of actors like Winona Ryder, Catherine O’Hara, and the recently mentioned Michael Keaton, I was intrigued by the newer characters too. Believe it or not, I never watched “Wednesday” or the recent “Scream” movies so I was not fully familiar with Jenna Ortega’s resume. The only major role of hers I have seen was in 2022’s “X.” But I am delighted to say Ortega does an okay job in her role. I thought while her character was written with some cliches, I thought Ortega played her part well. I was invested in her role. She also develops a connection with a character named Jeremy Frazier, played by Arthur Conti. Their connection takes the story in a much deeper direction than I was anticipating. But while I appreciated the depth of the story by the time we get to see these two together, there are some things in this movie that I would have preferred to be cleaned up.
The biggest problem I have with “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is that this movie tries to shove so much into one project. This movie is on the shorter side, with a runtime of 104 minutes. But at times it feels longer. There are scenes in this film that go on for what feels like an eternity. Again, I had fun with this movie. But not only do scenes overplay, but there are so many story elements going on at the same time that “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” falls into the typical sequel trap where it tends to go bigger, but unfortunately, not better. I cannot pinpoint to an element that breaks the movie beyond repair, but there is nevertheless so much going on.
Speaking of a lot of things going on, this film at times comes off as tonally inconsistent. To repeat what I said recently, the film is fun. That said, it is not all fun all the time. And when the tones shift, that transition feels nearly seismic. There are instances, particularly in the beginning of the film, that came off as serious. The movie’s serious moments were not as well executed as I would have hoped. They did not invest me as heavily as the moments that followed. As for the moments that followed, those are the moments that I came to the movie hoping to see and just so happened to be pleased by. The start of the film, perhaps the first half hour or so, feels dark and gloomy. However, I should not pretend this is not exactly dissimilar to the original film, where within the first ten minutes, we see a couple drive off a bridge and die. But even when that happens, there is a sense of wonder, a sense of mystery, a sense of fun. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” in comparison starts off making me wonder when the fun begins.
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has some clever concepts and ideas. I like the direction in which they took Lydia Deetz’s character. We now see her hosting a show called Ghost House, which deals with the supernatural. One concept that stuck with me by the end of the film is a Soul Train that takes passengers to the Great Beyond. It is not just called that because of something that could happen to your soul, but there’s a cool sequence where we see tons of people around said train dancing to soul music. I think by the end of the film, that becomes one of the concepts that feels overdone, but still, it was clever.
As for other positives in the film, Willem Dafoe does a good job as Wolf Jackson, I thought he brought some energy to the project. The color palette of this film is gorgeously vivid and immersive. It is truly eye-popping at times. Like I said regarding the original, the sets in this film are also a work of art. They are otherworldly and offer some extensively pleasing detail. This film aces its looks, but falters a tad when it comes to its personality. It comes off as somebody you know, perhaps a good friend, trying too hard to please or impress you. While they may be partially successful in said task, part of you wants them to calm down. Their point has been established and their task has been accomplished eons ago, so to speak.
In the end, I am glad I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” Does it feel like a movie only Tim Burton could make? For the most part I would say yes. But the movie is ultimately a series of ideas that sometimes works and at others, fail to stick the landing. If you liked Michael Keaton in the original film, you will like him in this one. He does a fantastic job as Beetlejuice. I am not one of those people who hails the original “Beetlejuice” as an all timer or as my favorite Tim Burton project, but I think this sequel is a step down from its 1988 predecessor. If I had to pick a film to watch tonight between the two, my pick is the original. I did not hate “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” There are moments to appreciate, but it is nowhere even close to being flawless. I am going to give “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” a 6/10.
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for a couple animated films, “Transformers One” and “The Wild Robot!” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Beetlejuice” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Twisters” is directed by Lee Isaac Chung (Minari, The Mandalorian) and stars Daisy Edgar-Jones (Normal People, Under the Banner of Heaven), Glen Powell (Top Gun: Maverick, Anyone But You), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Brandon Perea (Nope, The OA), Maura Tierney (NewsRadio, ER), and Sasha Lane (Loki, American Honey). This is a standalone sequel to the 1996 film “Twister,” and is about a former tornado chaser who comes to Oklahoma with a meteorologist to scan tornados.
While there are a fair share of original movies being made, it is also accurate to say that franchise continuations tend to stand out more nowadays than said originals. This even includes “Twisters,” a movie I have been looking forward to since the first trailer came out. Between the aura of Glen Powell, the energetic vibes, the riveting tornado shots, and a pinch of that summer blockbuster feel, I was stoked. But here’s the thing, at the time, I have still yet to watch the original “Twister.”
I may have heard “Twisters” was happening prior to the Super Bowl, but chances are I did not care about it. Why? Well, it is the same reason why I have yet to see “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.” It is the same reason why I am probably not going to see “Alien: Romulus” in the theater. As good as those movies look, I have some catching up to do when it comes to those properties. Thankfully, unlike the several movies both of those franchises offer, “Twister” only has one film for me to worry about. And as for that 1996 original movie, I thought it was rather fun. It had some immersive camerawork, a decent cast, a good amount of tornado action, and at times, an incredible score by Mark Mancina.
How does this standalone sequel compare to the original? I mean… It is fine I guess. It has its moments. I would not exactly rave about it, but I do not hate it. “Twisters” is kind of like Sbarro pizza. It is not the best of its class, but if it were one of the only options, I would tolerate its existence. Did I have fun with “Twisters” while watching it? Of course I did. And I would say that I am glad I watched this film in a theater as opposed to my house for the first time. This is definitely the kind of movie you would want to see on a giant screen, perhaps with a few friends. I cannot completely confirm or deny as I saw the film by myself, but still, that is the vibe I got.
“Twisters” pays respect to its predecessor. This was something I heard going into this movie, and was honestly quite worried about. Part of me was worried that this would be a beat for beat remake. While it is not quite as beat for beat as the 2019 edition of “The Lion King,” “Twisters” has a lot of similarities to its 1996 counterpart. There is a scene in a movie theater, kind of like how the original had a scene in a drive-in. The line in this film, “We got twins,” is very much a tribute to 1996’s “We got cows.” It’s little things like those that can easily be picked up along the way if you pay enough attention. Speaking of repeated techniques, “Twisters” is shot entirely on 35mm film. The average viewer is probably not going to care about a detail like that, but as I watched the movie, it definitely had a rugged palette in every frame. Even if the frame looked clean, it still had a sense of character to it that put me into each scene. With that in mind, I would still claim “Twisters” has enough material in it for the movie to stand on its own. It definitely feels like it belongs in the same universe as its predecessor, but by no means is it a complete ripoff despite some degree of copy and pasting.
One of the differences between this film and the original however, is the cast. This time around, there is, by complete coincidence, only one cast member from the original movie who returns for this follow-up. And they do not even play the same character. Instead, we have room for new stars including Daisy-Edgar Jones, who is finely cast in the lead role of Kate. You have Anthony Ramos, who brings a lot of energy to the screen as Javi. But if you see this movie yourself, chances are you are going to agree that there is one true star of the show…. Glen Powell as Tyler Owens.
Some argue that the movie star is dead, but if there is anyone who could potentially defeat that argument, Glen Powell is honestly a contender. As much as I hated “Anyone But You,” I thought Powell was far and away the best part of the film. Much like that movie, he oozes an endless stream of charisma. Every line out of him is perfectly delivered. His presence is incredible. If I had to come up with a word or two to describe Powell in “Twisters,” it would be “rockstar.” The moment he steps on screen, it is almost like this movie finished its opening act, and now he comes out and unleashes a sense of star power that is almost indescribable. I have no desire to ride a tornado. It is not my thing, but if anyone were to convince me I should, Tyler Owens might be the guy. Of course, there are still movie stars out there who have developed their career to a high like Dwayne Johnson, Tom Cruise, Ryan Reynolds… They have been on the scene for years and to some degree, they are all able to get butts into seats. After seeing “Twisters,” I am convinced Glen Powell is going to be looked back on years from now as one of this generation’s most adored talents. If there is a movie coming out that doesn’t exactly look great, I am sure it will get a boost at the box office if you simply put Powell’s face on the poster.
I also like the background behind Powell’s character. The movie establishes that Tyler Owens is a successful YouTuber. Owens has built a channel documenting his storm chases, earning him the nickname, “Tornado Wrangler.” He definitely delivers the energy you would expect out of a popular YouTuber or vlogger, I think Powell did a good job at channeling the traits I am used to seeing from some of my favorite personalities. The one thing though I would note is that Owens probably needs to work on his copyright game. Now, on YouTube, you can probably have some videos with copywritten material fly depending on the circumstances. There are times they can go unacknowledged or the owner of such material may not even care. But typically, it is wise for creators, especially for those trying to make money on their videos, to use royalty free music in their content, unlike Owens, who is making a video while blasting a copywritten song in the background. Just something that I noticed during the film that I probably would have changed if I were in control. I think it would have been funny to have Owens playing some fairly often used Kevin MacLeod song. It would have caught me really off guard in a good way.
Though I have to be real, much like the original “Twister,” this movie is probably not going to have much replay value for me. Am I glad I saw “Twisters?” Yes. Especially considering I saw it in the theater. But compared to the original, while “Twisters” is definitely equal in its own right when it comes to star power, feels a tad weaker when it comes to characterization. But at the same time, the characters do to a degree feel fairly fleshed out. The script is not really anything to write home about. The biggest thing this movie has going for it is Glen Powell’s personality. Honestly, his aura stands out more than the tornados themselves. That said, the sound is quite immersive. The film is decently shot. And it definitely has a fun factor to it. It is a fine movie to watch in order to kill a couple hours and maybe never watch again. You will not have any regrets watching this movie, but maybe not a ton of fond memories in the years down the road depending on your viewing experience.
In the end, “Twisters,” as a theatrical experience, is definitely one you would not want to miss. If it is playing in a theater near you, I would totally justify going to watch it. But this might just be a one and done film. There is not a ton of flair to it. It is not the best film of the year, nor is it the worst. For me, it is somewhere in the middle. I think the original is a slightly better experience, but if you do enjoy the original, you might enjoy this one to some degree as well. I am going to give “Twisters” a 6/10.
“Twisters” is now playing in theaters and is available to buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the latest entry to the MCU and one of my most anticipated movies of the year. You will have to find out next week if it lives up to the hype. Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Kinds of Kindness,” “The Instigators,” “Sing Sing,” and “Borderlands.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Twisters?” What did you think about it? Or, which is your favorite of the “Twister” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is directed by George Miller (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) and stars Anya Taylor-Joy (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The New Mutants), Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Tom Burke (Mank, The Souvenir), and Alyla Browne (Sting, Three Thousand Years of Longing) in a prequel film that follows its titular character’s origins throughout various stages of her life, before she meets Mad Max.
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is one of those films that had my interest ever since it was first announced. And as much as I know people love Charlize Theron’s take on the character back in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” I was very much excited to see what Anya Taylor-Joy could do with the role. She is one of the hottest names in Hollywood right now, racking up several projects that have given her a diverse resume. Everything from Jane Austen adaptations like “Emma.,” to visionary horror titles like “Last Night in Soho,” to a video game adaptation that has become one of the decade’s most mainstream titles, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” I am proud to say that when it comes to Anya Taylor-Joy’s take on the Furiosa character, I was not disappointed. Like all of her other roles, she plays the part well. Despite this movie having a female protagonist, this movie feels pretty masculine. And I mean that in a positive way. As I watched this movie, I was on a bit of a high, and Anya Taylor-Joy is the drug that fueled it.
In fact, all the actors in this film are great. None of them feel out of place. Not only does Taylor-Joy provide a superstar outing as Furiosa, but her younger variant, played by Alyla Browne, also shines bright. Lachy Hulme does a good job as Immortan Joe, who we previously saw played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in “Fury Road,” rest in peace. In fact, that’s not his only role in the film, because he is credited with playing Rizzdale Pell, a gang member serving under this film’s most enjoyable character to watch, Chris Hemsworth’s Dementus.
They say a movie is only as its good as its villain, so I am happy to report that Dementus will end up being one of my favorite on-screen villains I have seen this year. While Chris Hemsworth is playing a different character entirely, it is safe to say that he is putting the “mad” in “Mad Max.” He’s over the top, bombastic, and kind of wonderfully demented. Sometimes he is so rage-filled it is kind of artistic. There is something beautiful about it. Also, I love how he has a line twisting a classic phrase where he utters, “Lady and gentlemans.” Chef’s kiss.
And much like Hemsworth’s Thor sometimes, I can say Dementus’ beard game in this movie is strong. Just look it it. I have grown out my facial hair quite a bit from time to time, but I cannot say I have ever grown a beard like the one Dementus has. Adding to the beautiful rage of this character, Hemsworth himself has something to say to back that up. Speaking with Variety, Hemsworth goes on about his experience in the makeup chair…
“Twas justifiably irritated by the end of it. That really helped my performance-there was a nice amount of pent-up rage simmering under the surface.”
Take this as a lesson kids. If you work hard enough, and learn some patience by sitting in a chair, you too can entertain tons of people by becoming a bit of a maniac. Inspiring stuff.
That said, looking back at “Furiosa,” this movie ends on a bit of an interesting note. I do not want to spoil everything that happens in this film, but if you are a novice to this franchise, I will remind you once again this is a prequel to “Mad Max: Fury Road.” A film that, and I apologize to the thousands of cinephiles I am inevitably going to irritate, I find to be a tad overhyped.
Now to find that flame shield…
Nevertheless, I recognize that a lot of work went into “Mad Max: Fury Road,” not to mention a lot of money. Based on research via IMDb, the total budget of the film comes out to $150 million. Despite being older and less expensive, it still looks better than some of the more recent Marvel projects for example, including Hemsworth’s own “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Just so we have the statistics in place, I will remind you that “Furiosa” cost more than “Fury Road,” specifically $168 million. For the record, Wikipedia says “Fury Road” cost anywhere between $154.6–185.2 million, but if I had to compare “Fury Road” and “Furiosa” side by side, I would say that “Fury Road,” depending on what the actual budget is, feels like the slightly bigger bang for the studio’s buck. It is also a slightly better movie as a matter of fact. Story-wise, both of these movies do not have the most Shakespearean of plots or happenings. They are pretty simple when it comes to their concepts. And honestly, in the case of “Furiosa,” I sometimes wish I were more interested in some of the goings on that we witnessed on screen. “Furiosa” has a runtime of 148 minutes, and I truly felt that runtime. I have no problems with movies going on for that long. In fact on paper, one of the pros of having such a long runtime for a movie like this is that we get to see some pretty cool extended action sequences. There are some action scenes that go on for quite a bit and had me glued to the screen. But substance-wise, “Furiosa” feels kind of thin. Does this movie try to deliver a fun story? I guess. But other than seeing Furiosa grow up, I did not feel as engaged with this film as I wanted to. That said, one thing I was engaged by was seeing Furiosa’s exposure to certain torturous acts, and how much said acts shaped the perspective of the character throughout the film.
But this film ends on an interesting, yet rather fitting note. I do not think this is a spoiler. If you think otherwise, you do you. But the end credits for “Furiosa” start with a few minutes of clips essentially detailing “Mad Max: Fury Road.” After all, again, this film leads into that one. Though it got me thinking… Upon leaving the movie, I did not say I wanted to go back and watch “Furiosa” a second time. If anything, the credits made me think I should potentially revisit “Fury Road” instead. While “Furiosa” is well done in its own right, it made me wish I were watching something better. I have seen “Fury Road” twice, and even though I think it is not the masterpiece some call it, I recognize there is plenty to like about it. And I think there is more to like about “Fury Road,” than “Furiosa.” Sure, “Furiosa” could stand as its own movie, but at the end of the day, it doubles as the world’s most robust, compelling advertisement for “Mad Max: Fury Road.”
Much like “Fury Road,” “Furiosa” tends to use star power to sell itself between the casting of Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth. However, from an effects perspective, the money is definitely there, but it does not mean the quality is there. What makes the look of “Fury Road” so appealing at times is despite knowing it is a movie, it tends to look as raw and lifelike as it could in such an environment on display. In “Furiosa,” there are a fair share of effects that look like they could belong in a blockbuster movie, but they feel like they belong more in a demo for the sake of showing off a new piece of tech. There is a lot less verisimilitude with these effects this time around. While “Furiosa” does not have the worst special effects I have seen, they are a significant step down compared to its predecessor.
And that’s the thing about this movie. It reminds me a lot of “Fury Road,” but it does not do anything as exciting as it. Plus between some long buildup, some forgettable characters, and scenes that probably did not need to go on as long as they did, I do not think “Furiosa” is worth watching a second time. How does it compare to the other “Mad Max” installments? I will be real, I have not seen any of the other ones. I want to, I just have not had the time. I could tell George Miller made the movie the way he intended. I just wish it were better.
In the end, “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” has plenty of positives. But there is not a lot in this movie, maybe other than Hemsworth as the villain, that truly stands out. Do not get me wrong. Anya Taylor-Joy does a good job as the title character. The film, despite some overpolishing, is easy on the eyes. The color palette of the film is appealing. I say this film looks like an over the top tech demo, and I meant such a thought as a bit of a dig. But it does not mean the film all looks bad. Also, if the Oscars were tomorrow, “Furiosa” would definitely be nominated for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. But when all is said and done, I would rather watch “Mad Max: Fury Road” one more time as opposed to watching “Furiosa” again. I am going to give “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” a 6/10.
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is now playing in theatres and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Thelma,” the new movie starring June Squibb as an elderly woman who tries to get her money back from scammers. Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” 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 “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga?” What did you think about it? Or, which Furiosa-centric story do you think is superior? “Fury Road” or “Furiosa?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 