Warner Bros

Red One (2024): A Holiday Movie for Everyone, and Therefore, No One

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

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.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

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.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

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!

The Campaign (2012): Congressional Chaos Ensues in This Middle of the Road Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is November and it is finally time for another monthly review series. Welcome to Election Days! Speaking of which, today is November 5th, or as the U.S. knows it, Election Day. I try not to talk about politics on Scene Before, sometimes if I am talking about a political movie, such a thing is unavoidable. But all month long, I will be discussing movies that center around U.S. politics, and we are going to start this review series by talking about the 2012 comedy, “The Campaign.” This is my second time watching the film. I checked it out once a couple years ago. So, here is my second impression of the movie.

“The Campaign” is directed by Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Dinner for Schmucks) and stars Will Ferrell (Megamind, Step Brothers) and Zach Galifianakis as two candidates running for a seat in the 14th Congressional District in North Carolina.

(L-r) ZACH GALIFIANAKIS as Marty Huggins and WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

As I mentioned in the intro, this is my second time watching “The Campaign,” that is unless you count other times I overheard the film in the background when it was airing on cable. That said, this is my second committed viewing of the film. Truth be told, when it comes to my first time watching “The Campaign,” I was not in love with the film by the end of it. Yes, it certainly has a good cast between Will Ferrell, Dan Aykroyd, John Lithgow, and even Thomas Middleditch. There’s no shortage of likable actors in the movie. But it does not change the fact that I have seen them do better things. That said, I thought some people were well placed in their respective roles. I thought everyone did okay with the material given to them. My biggest problem with the film though is perhaps also my biggest problem with “Killers of the Flower Moon,” particularly the protagonist. Having seen the movie a second time, I can confirm that problem continues to linger.

(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady, KATHERINE LaNASA as Rose Brady, MADISON WOLFE as Jessica Brady and RANDALL CUNNINGHAM as Cam Jr. in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

I do not need all my protagonists to be the same, but I found Will Ferrell’s character, Cam Brady, to be a bit of an egotist, kind of jerky sometimes, and somewhat hard to root for. My distaste for Brady does not have as much as to with his policies or political views in comparison to his personality. I am not in love with the way he presents himself. Granted, Will Ferrell has previously played Ron Burgundy in “Anchorman,” who is also kind of jerky and an egotist. However, I believe Burgundy crosses that line to where he is not exactly a butthead, but rather a lovable moron. Also, I found “Anchorman” to be much more quotable, much funnier. I barely remembered the dialogue from “The Campaign” once the movie was finished. Now that the movie is fresh in my mind, I can say that even after the second time, the film is still nowhere near as quotable as “Anchorman.” That said, there are a lot of decent comedy gags.

A couple of my favorite parts of the movie include one moment where we see Zach Galifianakis’ character, Marty Huggins, having dinner with his family, and they all confess personal sins or mishaps to which they have connected themselves recently. And the further we get into the conversation, the crazier the sin. We hear confessions from Huggins’ wife, Mitzi (Sarah Baker), and their two boys. It was one of the funnier scenes of the movie. I want to know how much of it was improvised by the actors themselves or how much of it was written in advance, because a lot of what was revealed in this particular scene is pretty clever.

I think I would like this movie better if Cam Brady was not the main character. Again, I do not find him to be particularly likable. Honestly, I found myself more interested in the story behind Marty Huggins, an everyday North Carolinian who does tours of his town. Sure, the movie sort of stereotypes the character and basically makes him a live-action Ned Flanders to an overwhelming degree, but I thought the character was charming. But I also think this kind of gets into the nitty gritty of general politics where something as simple as getting to power becomes a competition where people have no choice but to fight dirty. Sometimes an ego can help you make your way to the top. Sometimes people like that. There is a saying that nice guys finish last and that saying could perhaps apply to politics from time to time.

I am reviewing this movie during the U.S. election season of 2024, and one of the most prominent things I can say about the film is that there are parallels to said season. I do not want to highlight my political views, but Cam Brady as a character reminds me a bit of Donald Trump. They are not the same guy by any stretch of the imagination. But Trump seems to do well with males. There is a scene where we see Brady and crew watching a concept for a campaign ad and it paints Brady as a “REAL AMERICAN MAN,” and spends lots of time hyping up how his partner is a flexible, attractive cheerleader, and the ad shows her off like she is auditioning for Playboy. Unsurprisingly, that ad tested very well with men, but not so fantastically with women. Without spoiling anything, Brady relationship with said partner sort of reminds me of what some people speculate about Trump’s current relationship with his wife, Melania. Specifically as to whether Melania genuinely loves her husband as opposed to being by his side for an unrelated reason. But you could also say this movie does a good job at drawing parallels to typical behavior we see in politics nowadays, more than what we are just seeing in this election season. Whether it is putting words in other people’s mouths, finger-pointing, politicians pretending to be more interested in a subject or topic than perhaps they actually are. The movie shows how much the opponents try to one up each other to the point where they will be okay with issuing the most public of humiliations. The rivalry comes off like “Impractical Jokers” if instead of it being between a group of friends, it is between two enemies who have no chance of making up and making out at the end of the day.

Also, Joe Gatto, I miss you… If you want to come back, please do. You’re an icon.

(L-r) JOHN LITHGOW as Glenn Motch and DAN AYKROYD as Wade Motch in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

One particular highlight of the movie for me, or more accurately, two highlights, are John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd as Glenn and Wade Motch. These men are a couple of money-hungry brothers who end up playing a role in the race between the two candidates. From a casting perspective, I think both actors are well placed and they do a great job with their material. I also want to know if it was on purpose that whoever cast these two or the director wanted the two brothers to look like real-life variants of Statler and Waldorf from “The Muppets.” I mean look at them! The resemblance is there! They also have some of the better lines in the film. There is one exchange towards the final minutes of the runtime that got a good laugh out of me. As I said, this is not the funniest movie I have ever seen, but when it sticks the landing, it does so very well.

This movie also features its fair share of news reports. Most of the time when news reports come up in movies, they do not really add that much to the film other than an instance of exposition or drama. But in the case of “The Campaign,” this film delivers perhaps one of the funnier anchor reads I have come across in the history of cinema, particularly from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.

“This is likely to hurt him (Brady) with the Christian right, social conservatives. Really any group that opposes baby-punching.” -Chris Matthews

And yes, this is one of those major incidents we see come up in connection to our main protagonist. He accidentally punches a baby. This happens during the first half of the film, but it is not how it starts. I kind of wonder how much more I would have enjoyed the film had this particular incident been the first controversy the protagonist had to deal with. We see him in the first few minutes with his team dealing with the aftermath of sending a lewd voicemail to a family and it honestly just made him look like an imbecile. If we supposedly start with Brady punching the baby, it could have humanized him a bit more and maybe given me a more positive first impression. I get that this film is satirical, and therefore occasionally far-fetched, but I believe that there are moments of the film where the line is crossed a tad too far.

(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady and JASON SUDEIKIS as Mitch in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

In the end, “The Campaign” is not going to get a lot of repeat viewings from me. It is not the best movie I have ever seen by any stretch of the imagination. And at times, it is rather predictable. But it is also perhaps more than meets the eye. Maybe if I revisit this movie in 2028 I will feel different about it, but if I can find some parallels between this movie’s script and the 2024 presidential race, then maybe this movie is aging just fine and could be something more than a middle of the road comedy. But unfortunately that is also what this movie is. A middle of the road comedy. It definitely has laughs. But I also have seen much funnier movies, especially from both Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis. I did not hate myself after watching “The Campaign,” but it could be better. I am going to give “The Campaign” a 6/10.

“The Campaign” is now available on DVD and Blu-ray and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for more reviews in my ongoing Election Days series. My next “Election Days” review is going to be for “W.,” which stars Josh Brolin as former U.S. President George W. Bush. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Campaign?” What did you think about it? Or, if they were to make another election race movie starring two comedians as opposing candidates, who would you like to see as the stars of that film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024): An Unnecessary, Overpriced, Frustrating Sequel That Falls Flat On Its Face

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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 (2024): A Long-Awaited, Gorgeously Convoluted Sequel to Tim Burton’s 1988 Horror Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024): Anya Taylor-Joy is Fast and Furious in This Mad Max Prequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“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!

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024): Stomp Away from This One…

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is directed by Adam Wingard (The Guest, Blair Witch) and stars Rebecca Hall (The Prestige, The Town), Brian Tyree Henry (Atlanta, Bullet Train), Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey, The Guest), Kaylee Hottle, Alex Ferns (Andor, Chernobyl), and Fala Chen (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, The Undoing). This is the fifth entry to the MonsterVerse franchise as the two titular titans find themselves in battle once again. Meanwhile, a set of humans venture to Skull Island and unravel its mysteries.

Before we begin this review, I must shoutout my favorite film of 2023, “Godzilla Minus One.” I did not think the film was going to be bad, but I was not prepared for just how good that flick was going to be. Once the picture was over, I had to ask myself whether what I just watched was real. I did not think I was watching a “Godzilla” movie and instead, something better. But that’s probably an indicator of my limited experience with the franchise. Because most of it was through the ongoing MonsterVerse, which of course also has King Kong. Truthfully, the MonsterVerse does not have the best batting average when it comes to quality. “Godzilla” is barely passable. “Kong: Skull Island” had some fun moments. “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is one of the biggest disappointments I have ever seen. “Godzilla vs. Kong” was admittedly one of the most fun experiences I had at the movies the year it came out. That said, the story and characters needed some work. Of the four previous movies, I had experiences with three of them that lean in a more positive direction, but I cannot say any of them are iconic.

I was not really looking forward to this installment. This would come as a bit of a surprise given how much I enjoyed the last movie. But the trailers did not win me over. It seemed to come with the same problems with the last film despite how much I enjoyed it. At the same time, there was no real oomph for the film. I mean, Godzilla’s pink now. Sure…

Additionally, like some other people, I continue to question how he can run so fast. I am genuinely bewildered as to how this speed is possible for someone like Godzilla.

But low expectations do not necessarily guarantee a bad movie. In fact, the lower my expectations, the greater the potential for a pleasant surprise, which is one of the greatest feelings I can have as a moviegoer. Unfortunately, there is no surprise here with “Godzilla x Kong.” It is not great. Thankfully, it is not as bad as “Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” which was another level of boring. But this movie feels like a classic case of looks over personality. The positives in this movie mainly come down to the dazzling visual effects, occasionally cool action sequences, and the overall neat design of Skull Island. Action-wise, the biggest problem I have is when things start to go down, I wish I felt more engaged with the stakes and the story. During “Godzilla vs. Kong,” I watched the action sequences and wondered where it would end up taking the characters involved. In “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire,” the conflict and stakes did not feel as present as the last film. I felt like I was watching monsters fighting as opposed to immersing myself in the world and asking what is going to come of said fights. However, there are a couple instances in the choreography that I was genuinely not expecting. I did not laugh during this movie as much as I would believe it wanted me to, but I almost died during one particular sequence where Kong uses someone else as a weapon. I was cackling like an idiot. Speaking of which, when it comes to the script, I am sure the people who wrote this movie are not idiots, but I certainly felt like an idiot while hearing some of the dialogue.

Every other line uttered by the humans on Skull Island feels like something out of a tutorial or straight up exposition dump. I understand that this is a fantasy world and it is something we have not seen, but the dialogue out of these characters feels like it is bridging into wonderland. I will say though, one of the reasons why I think “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is superior to “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is because this new movie tends to at least embrace the fun of its absurd moments, even if I think they are too far-fetched, whereas “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” feels serious despite having an occasional failed attempt to throw in a funny line here and there. That said, both movies have the same problem. The humans.

Some of the humans from “Godzilla vs. Kong” make a return here. You’ve got Brian Tyree Henry back as Bernie Hayes (right). And he is just about as interesting as he was in 2021. That is if you can call a guy whose primary personality trait is “wacko podcaster” interesting.

I think the best human character of the entire cast is also one of the returning roles, specifically, Kaylee Hottle as Jia. I think her connection to Kong, which was established in the previous installment, makes for one of the film’s better elements of the story. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast feels like they are just there. There is nothing particularly striking about them.

Despite the throwaway human characters and lackluster dialogue, this movie, oddly enough, tends to kill it when it comes to visual storytelling at times. Specifically, when it comes to the monsters. Now, the monsters do not speak English. The closest many of these beasts come to talking is roaring. But there are select moments, most notably when it comes to characters like Kong and Skar King, the latter of whom is an effective villain. When I was watching select scenes with these characters, part of me wished I could spend more time with them as opposed to the humans who often felt as if they were interfering with the film’s quality. In fact, for a movie with “Godzilla” being the first word in the title, I am kind of surprised we did not get more screentime with “Godzilla” this time around. That said, this ultimately came off as Kong’s story more than anyone else. The movie is mostly set in his world, and shows off everything it has to offer, both good and bad. Therefore, when it comes to providing a Kong-centric journey, the movie does its job. Yes, Godzilla is there. But this is more of a “Kong” movie than a “Godzilla” movie. I mean, I get why he has more screentime. When you have all these human characters, you probably want a more humanized monster at the center. Of the two titular titans, Kong is the clear winner.

If I had anything else to add, I would say I am surprised humanity has not tried harder to turn against these monsters after seeing all the destruction they do to their world. The sound design in this film is to no surprise, boisterously cool. Also, out of all the things I expected to see in this movie, monster dentistry was not one of them. Remember how I said the movie sometimes embraces its silly nature? There is literally a whole scene dedicated to giving Kong a new tooth. I mean… I have seen stranger things. But even in this world, I admittedly almost have trouble buying this concept as much as it tries to blend itself into the script.

In the end, maybe it is because I feel spoiled after watching the Shakespearean masterpiece that is “Godzilla Minus One,” I feel like “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is a ginormous waste of time. On the technical side, the film comes supersized with several positives from the way it is shot to the color grading to the sound to overall scale of everything on screen. Skull Island feels massive and inviting from scene one. It is almost like its own character. But everything surrounding it feels second tier. Every other time a human said something, I wanted to roll my eyes. Their involvement in the story did not do much for me. Honestly, when it comes to Godzilla’s presence in the film, I kind of felt underwhelmed. The moments he was on screen were okay, I just wish he were there a bit longer. I was not as engaged in this story as I wanted to be despite a few decent action scenes. I am not going to pretend 2021’s “Godzilla vs. Kong” had the best story either. But not only did it have better action, but as far as overall progression and pacing goes, I prefer that movie over this one. I am going to give “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” a 4/10.

“Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming soon! My next review is going to be for Dev Patel’s new film, “Monkey Man.” Stay tuned! Also, look out for my thoughts on “Abigail,” “Civil War,” “Boy Kills World,” “Challengers,” and “The Fall Guy.” 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 “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite entry in the current MonsterVerse? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dune Part Two (2024): Long Live Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dune Part Two” is directed by Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049, Arrival) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Wonka, Interstellar), Zendaya (Spider-Man: Homecoming, The Greatest Showman), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), Josh Brolin (The Goonies, Avengers: Infinity War), Austin Butler (Elvis, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Florence Pugh (Black Widow, Don’t Worry Darling), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy, Blade Runner 2049), Christopher Walken (Catch Me if You Can, The Deer Hunter), Léa Seydoux (Crimes of the Future, Spectre), Souheila Yacoub (Making of, Climax), Stellan Skarsgård (Mamma Mia!, Thor), Charlotte Rampling (Restless, 45 Years), and Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos, No Country for Old Men). This film is a sequel to the 2021 science-fiction epic based on the novel by Frank Herbert. It follows Paul Atriedes as he journeys with the Fremen while waging war against House Harkonnen.

It is crazy to think how far we are in the 2020s. The decade is flying by. It kind of feels like yesterday when I saw “Dune” for the first time in theaters. By now, I have seen it a few times in theaters, once on 4K Blu-ray, and a couple times on TNT. Safe to say, this film has taken up a significant part of my screentime through the past two and a half years. And like many people, I happened to dig it. I do not think it is by any means the greatest science fiction film ever. If anything, the pacing could have been improved. The color palette could have been tinkered just a tad in select scenes. The film feels far less eventful in its third act than it does in the first two, which felt a bit odd but I was engaged nevertheless. Overall, I thought the first “Dune” was fantastic. It even made my top 10 best movies of 2021 and won Best Picture at the 4th Annual Jack Awards. It is a really good movie and it is deserving of its praise, even if there are science fiction films I would rather watch first.

In fact, of Denis Villeneuve’s filmography, I think it is one of his inferior outings. I liked “Prisoners” better. I liked “Arrival” better. I liked “Blade Runner 2049” better. He did those previous two movies back to back and both were equally sensational. Even with the slightly weaker “Dune” coming afterwards, I will not deny that Denis Villeneuve is not only on a hot streak, but is building a case to become the greatest science fiction director ever. As far as my excitement for “Dune Part Two” goes, it was astronomical. All the trailers were great. The footage looked beautiful. And knowing that the film was shot in IMAX’s specialized aspect ratio was a bonus. I thought the film was made for the theatrical experience, and I was also happy to know that more people were going to get the chance to see this movie the way this and the last film were meant to be seen.

Shoutout to HBO Max for nearly killing movie theaters in 2021.

But the million dollar question is this… How was the movie?

Well, to answer that question… I am going to start off by stating a potential problem the movie has. And that is that I will never be able to watch it for the first time again. I will likely never get to experience the sense of euphoria the way I did seeing this movie during my initial viewing.

For those who nag about me not getting around to certain film classics like “Rocky” or “12 Angry Men,” those who choose to say I am not a real movie fan, I could do the same thing to you when it comes to “Pulp Fiction” or “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but I am not going to. Instead, I am going to tell you I am somewhat jealous because you have the opportunity on your hands to watch those movies for the first time. When I hear someone is going to watch either of those films for the first time, my initial thought is, good for them! I hope they have a time of their life equal to what I myself experienced during my first viewing. I feel the same way about “Dune Part Two,” because while I immensely enjoyed the first “Dune,” not only does this sequel feel like it is on another level, but it is one of the most innovative additions to the sci-fi genre that comes to mind.

And I say this knowing that this is a follow-up that just so happens to be the second half of a first book of a popular series that has already been adapted to both film and TV in the past. Nevertheless, this feels like something new. There are times where I watched “Dune Part Two” and could not help but make a couple “Star Wars” analogies. Based on its technical mastery and power, this film must emit similar feelings to when people watched “Star Wars” for the first time in 1977. Meanwhile, as a sequel, “Dune Part Two” reminds me a bit of “The Empire Strikes Back.”

This is not only because “Dune Part Two” is a high quality second installment, but when it comes to the duel scenes, those are improved here. Not that the duel scenes in the first “Dune” were bad. If anything, they were terrific. That said, the choreography is much more spellbinding this time around. Additionally, I felt incredibly riveted by the story and characters, which made the film’s action scenes all the more exciting. With these two ideas in mind, I can tell you there is a duel towards the end of this film that is nothing short of jaw-dropping. The choreography is so fast that you would think that Sonic the Hedgehog oversaw it. Meanwhile, it is all in the middle of a key scene of the film where the emotions of our characters reach a tipping point. Where the story reaches its finest moments. Where we get some of the finest exchanges and performances in the history of science fiction. There is a moment towards the end of the movie, it is in the trailer, where Paul Atriedes yells, “SILENCE!” As far as pure line delivery goes, it is arguably the most chilling utterance of dialogue of the decade so far. The only other line in a movie that I can think of that came out in the 2020s that rivals this for me is the final line of “Oppenheimer.” Specifically, “I believe we did.”

Another reason why I found myself calling this the next “Empire Strikes Back” is because it goes all out on its antagonists. Stellan Skarsgård returns once again to slay his performance as Baron Harkonnen. Dave Bautista continues to prove himself as a fine wrestler-turned-actor as Glossu Rabban. In fact, not only does Bautista cement himself as a superior wrestler-turned-actor when compared to John Cena and Dwayne Johnson, he convinces me he could rack up one or two Oscar nominations if he keeps up the good work. I have seen Bautista in quite a few movies now. “Dune Part Two” is easily his greatest performance yet. Between the “Dune” movies and “Blade Runner 2049,” I would love to see Bautista continue to collaborate with Denis Villeneuve as much as possible because they tend to bring out the best in each other. Both of these characters are intimidating and well executed. Every moment they are on screen had me hooked.

But the real star of the show, antagonist-wise, is Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha. While I did not love “Elvis,” there is no denying that Butler was the best part of it. Much like that film, his performance just so happens to be one of the best elements of “Dune Part Two.” There is such a sinister nature to this character that is almost beyond reality but in the case of this universe, I immediately bought into it from scene one. Butler makes it believable. This is a guy who will literally kill his own people on a whim, perhaps delivering him a great deal of satisfaction as a result. Feyd-Rautha works so well because he emitted a feeling in me that many great villains should be able to emit. He becomes a character that I love to hate. I would not want to go bowling with this character, but as a villain, he is perfect. Not only that, but Butler sometimes feels unrecognizable. I have not seen him in a lot of movies, but based on what I have seen him in before, he has a flair to his performance here that comes off as individualistic.

That said, this is film is led by Timothée Chalamet. In today’s culture, it is easy to say the idea of “the movie star” is dead. But if there are sparks of that idea that are still alive, then Timothée Chalamet is certainly one of them. And boy is he a fine star. Not only is he young and good looking, not only is he bankable, but he also just so happens to have incredible range. Prior to this movie, he starred in “Wonka.” While I was not a fan of the movie, I thought he handled the material perfectly. He made the movie fun. He was expressive, upbeat, not to mention a mighty fine vocalist. Now we go to his next movie, “Dune Part Two,” where Chalamet’s character is caught in the middle of war, politics, and drama. And Chalamet’s ability to immerse himself into a world like this is impeccable. It feels weird, but one of Chalamet’s hidden talents is making such a scrawny dude come off as one of the most convincing leading figures in recent cinema. Sure, he’s not exactly short, but muscular is not the first word I’d use to describe Chalamet as a person.

I think “Dune Part Two” has an advantage for general audiences. While I cannot imagine this movie being for everyone, I can see this movie having a wider appeal than the first one. The movie not only has more action, but I would say the action is better this time around. I also think this film’s use of Stilgar makes for a great sidekick role of sorts. He almost comes off as a guy you would be sitting next to as you are watching the movie. Maybe he recommended it to you and is guiding you for the ride. Additionally, he has some of the most memorable lines. One of my favorite moments in “Dune Part Two” is when we see him believe Paul refuses to mention he is “the one.” There is a reason why I am seeing the words “As it is written” all over social media right now, it is Javier Bardem does a phenomenal job as Stilgar. He is perfectly cast and I cannot imagine anyone else filling in his shoes.

That said, if you enjoyed “Dune,” that does not necessarily imply you will fail to do the same in regards to “Dune Part Two.” I am proof of that. I really liked the first “Dune.” I gave it a positive review. But I think this sequel feels more adventurous. The score, somehow, is more memorable its predecessor. There is a theme that blares throughout the movie that I cannot get out of my head. It does a good job at expanding the lore and building the world. The acting is better. And as a pure experience, “Dune Part Two” is simply put, superior. One of my problems with the first “Dune” is that it very much feels like an intro guide to the world within. The movie has a three act structure, character development, and pretty much everything else you need to call it a movie. But one of its flaws is that it tends to feel more like a “how to survive Arrakis tutorial” than a journey through Arrakis. Now with this movie, it feels like we are taking the tools we acquired from the predecessor and putting them to the test.

Thankfully, as I write this review, “Dune Part Two” is still playing in theaters. And I must tell you, if you have not seen “Dune Part Two” in a theater yet, do yourself a favor and get your tickets as soon as you can, because this is one of those theatrical experiences you have to see to believe. This is easily one of the best times I ever had in a movie theater. I felt like sand was coming through the speakers the entire time. I thought I was in the middle of the desert. I was convinced the wind was flying in my face. If you told me that I was in Arrakis for two and a half hours, I would have believed you. But there is a reason, above all others, why you should see this movie on the big screen. Sandworms. Yes, there are sandworms in the last movie. But that’s not the point.

In this sequel, there are several minutes in this movie dedicated to Paul first experiencing what it is like to ride a sandworm for the first time. This is one of the most riveting, loudest, most visceral, exhilarating scenes yours truly has ever witnessed. This is one of those scenes that shows why movie theaters are built. It shows why we make big movies for the big screen. When I look back at this scene, it was almost as if I were alive a century or two ago, I had never seen a movie and someone from the distant future time-travelled to when I would exist. That person would then show me the power of what movies could be. This scene is perfection. It was well shot, packed with rambunctiously satisfying audio, and is nothing short of a perfect tech demo. But in both the background and the forefront, we are seeing our characters experience the world in front of them, learn more about each other, themselves, and their abilities. As an audience member, I am getting a great mix of thrills, expansion of lore, and details about certain characters.

The movie makes such a simple moment of learning and adapting look like the most intense thing in the history of the world. This is a scene I will never forget. Once again, a moment like this will show why I would be jealous to find out someone tells me they are about to watch this movie for the first time.

I thought the sandworm action could not get as electrifying as this… Until the second half of the movie happened, and somehow it equaled, if not surpassed the thrills I felt before. There is a scene, you’ll know it when you see it, where there is a shot showing the perspective from a sandworm’s eye. It is one of the most eye-popping, beautiful things I have ever seen on a screen. It’s quick, it’s raw, it’s massive. It is basically an encapsulation that describes the film itself. I was thrilled to no end.

Although going back to the original “Dune,” this brings up something noticeable about this sequel. There is a reason why it has “Part Two” in its title. Obviously, it is the second “Dune” movie, yes. Also, it is the second half of the original book. But this really is true to its name, a “Part Two.” There are several sequels you could watch and appreciate without having to see the original movie. Having watched “Dune Part Two,” this is one of those movies where I feel in order to fully appreciate what is in front of you, it would be worth going back and giving the first “Dune” a watch at some point. Either if you forgot what happened, or if you have never seen it before. Because there are a couple moments that would hit harder if you have that movie under your belt.

I have not seen “Dune Part Two” a second time just yet, but knowing the how lost for words I became by the time the movie was over, my second viewing is definitely around the corner. But I will never forget my first time. And this is where I bring in another “Star Wars” comparison. Much like that 1977 science fiction event, I will look back at “Dune Part Two” as a film that will define a generation. It has flaws. I kind of wish to know how people get off the sandworms once they are done with them. Some of the pacing feels inconsistent, but even in the less consistent moments the story is still exciting. And again, if you have not seen the first movie, it could theoretically lessen the impact of this one just a little. Other than that, there is not much else can I say except this is one of the best fiction movies of the decade, and you should see it as soon as you get a chance.

In the end, “Dune Part Two” fits the classic motto of a fine sequel. It goes bigger, and it is better. “Dune Part Two” is not only superior to its predecessor, but it is also the first great movie I have seen in 2024. It is still early in the year, but I needed this. After “Madame Web,” “Night Swim,” and “Argylle,” I truly needed a movie that I could deem somewhere on the level of a master class effort. And this is that movie. Going back to what I said earlier, Denis Villeneuve is on a roll. While I think Christopher Nolan is the superior director, he has a knack for filmmaking that is on the level of Christopher Nolan. I have not seen all of his work. I still need to watch “Enemy” and “Incendies.” But from what I have seen so far from Villeneuve, I can say that I have not seen a single bad movie from him. I can easily name a least favorite, and that would be “Sicario,” but that is still a movie where there are more positives than negatives for me. If Denis Villeneuve ends up making a third “Dune,” perhaps an adaptation of “Dune: Messiah” that is on the level of these last two movies, it would easily further the case of him being the greatest sci-fi director of all time. Villeneuve is that good at what he does. But it is not just him. You have Greig Fraser’s immensely beautiful cinematography. Hans Zimmer’s roaring score. An incredible ensemble of actors across the board. Timothée Chalamet, Stellan Skarsgård, Rebecca Ferguson, Austin Butler, and Dave Bautista just to name a few! I did not even get to Zendaya! She does a really good job as Chani in this film. Regarding the love connection between Chani and Paul, I bought into it immediately. It is still early, so it is hard to know how this movie will do next awards season. That said, not only could I see this movie getting nominated for Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, …I can totally see it winning. It is that brilliant. I am going to give “Dune Part Two” a 9/10.

“Dune Part Two” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, good news! I have more coming! Be sure to look out for my thoughts on “High Tide,” “Kung Fu Panda 4,” “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Snack Shack,” “Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire,” and “Monkey Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dune Part Two?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite scene in film history? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023): The DCEU Ends Not with a Bang, But a Whimper

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is directed by James Wan (The Conjuring, Furious 7) and stars Jason Momoa (Fast X, See), Patrick Wilson (Insidious, The Conjuring), Amber Heard (Her Smell, Drive Angry), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (The Matrix Resurrections, The Trial of the Chicago 7), Randall Park (WandaVision, Fresh Off the Boat), Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV, The Expendables), Temuera Morrison (The Book of Boba Fett, Once Were Warriors), Martin Short (Mulaney, Only Murders in the Building), and Nicole Kidman (The Northman, Eyes Wide Shut). This film is a sequel to the 2018 film “Aquaman” where the titular character, also known by the name Arthur Curry, must balance being a father in addition to the King of Atlantis. Meanwhile, Black Manta is planning his revenge plot against the powerful superhero. With the villain’s return coming his way, it is up to Aquaman and his imprisoned brother to save the kingdom.

Of all the DCEU movies, the one that has been most likely to get a sequel based on results alone is “Aquaman.” Yes, “Wonder Woman” was a huge hit financially, critically, and has done really well with a variety of audiences, including me. But “Aquaman” is the only title in the cinematic universe to make a billion dollars, and remains the highest-grossing DC film ever. Sure, maybe the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp shenanigans in recent years, in addition to other factors, may have decreased the chances of a sequel happening, but nevertheless. In fact, I really enjoyed the film when I saw it. I will also add it was extra special to watch on the big screen as it had some of the best visuals and sound of its respective year. It was an extravaganza for the eyes and ears. The film seems to make for a proper tech demo when first using a new television or surround sound system. When it comes to my DCEU rankings, it is somewhere in the middle. I liked most of the DCEU titles. I could probably count the ones I did not like on one hand.

But I am going to be real, of all the comic book movies coming out this year, I think I was looking forward to this one the least. The marketing for most of DC’s movies this year has not been fantastic, and I admittedly liked the first trailer for this film to some degree, but I have heard more than I wanted to know about test screenings. The behind the scenes shenanigans did not boost confidence. To some degree, the film very much struck a feeling of “been there done that.” And when it comes to the higher ups at Warner Bros. and DC like David Zaslav and James Gunn, they spent significantly more time boosting promotion and awareness for “The Flash,” another problematic movie on its own. Despite that, they and others basically summarized “The Flash” as one of the best movies of its genre. Having seen the movie, it is not. It is not even the best comic book movie of the year. It is not even the best DC movie of the year. That honor so far belongs “Blue Beetle.”

According to Wikipedia, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” did not hold its official premiere until December 19th at a fan event in Los Angeles. Per Borys Kit of The Hollywood Reporter, there was no red carpet. No afterparty. And therefore, an absolute likelihood of no confidence in the film whatsoever.

But I am a trooper. I am a DC fan. I enjoy comic book movies. I am not feeling the “fatigue” some people claim to have. I think most of the comic book-based projects that came out this year were enjoyable. Yes, even “The Marvels.” Yes, even “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” Not sorry. “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” has the special distinction of being the only comic book movie I have seen this year that I did not enjoy.

And I didn’t just “not enjoy” it. This is one of the most bottom of the barrel, uninspired, and inconceivably boring wastes of time I have had watching a comic book movie. This is bad.

They say it is common for sequels to be inferior to the original, but the difference in quality between 2018’s “Aquaman” and 2023’s “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is as massive as the Atlantic Ocean. I am not going to pretend the first “Aquaman” is the greatest movie ever made. But this is like going from a Nintendo Switch to a Virtual Boy. I am utterly shocked that James Wan was behind this project. I do not enjoy all of his movies. I think one of his latest films, “Malignant,” is an abhorrent waste of time. But he is one of the more prominent mainstream filmmakers working today. He has a decent reputation.

Unfortunately, when it comes to “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” I feel like a hypocrite judging it. Because when I first watched “Aquaman,” I praised it for being like a live action cartoon. It is sometimes out there and nonsensical, but it is done in such a way that works. You cannot go wrong with a movie where an octopus plays the drums. But when I think of the ways that “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” disappointed me, one of the first that comes to mind is that it is overly cartoony. And maybe, if I sit down and think about it, I might not be disappointed with the fact that the movie is overly cartoony and more disappointed by how it specifically handles said cartooniness. Because to some degree, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” feels like more of the same, but with less of an oomph than before. There was a certain novelty factor to that original film despite coming out at a time where comic book movies dominated the market. The film was the definition of crazy, stupid fun. Now it is just crazy and stupid.

Jason Momoa is a likable actor. I enjoyed him as “Aquaman” in his previous portrayals in “Justice League” and this film’s predecessor. I like this universe’s take on “Aquaman” because he always felt like the cool superhero you wanted to hang out with. But when I watch this movie, he feels lame in comparison. And I do not think Momoa himself is lame. If anything, he is doing the best he can with the material given to him. Most of the time, that is. There are some scenes where he and others are kind of stiff in front of the camera. But for the scenes where Momoa stands out in a more positive way, his character is nevertheless comparatively boring when looking back at his portrayal in the original film. Does his development from one film to the next make sense? Sure. But the execution of the material following said development was tiresome. Arthur Curry is a dad now and quite a bit of the material involving that made for some lower points of the film. There is a portion of the plot involving that idea that brought some intrigue, but it was not enough to make the movie good.

Also, Momoa spends a good portion of the movie alongside Patrick Wilson. I could not have been more turned off by their chemistry. I could tell the movie was trying to go for a Thor and Loki-esque brotherly dynamic between these two, but it felt more like it was trying too hard to copy what Marvel does well to the point where it feels like exactly that. An inferior copy. Their relatonship is forced, and never once was I onboard with it.

Black Manta is the antagonist of this movie. And say what you want about Dar-Benn, the antagonist of “The Marvels,” coming off as forgettable. If I were being frank, she was not the best antagonist I have ever seen, but I liked her in the context of the film. It has been awhile since I have seen the first “Aquaman” so it would be hard for me to compare how Black Manta stands from one movie to the next. But I can say as far as this sequel is considered, Black Manta is the most one-dimensional antagonist I have seen all year. There is nothing interesting about him. The limits to his character are him getting possessed and unleashing his revenge boner for the entire movie, and the way he does it is unreal. I did not know whether to cringe, laugh, or cry. Maybe I could have done all three if I really wanted to.

Let’s talk about Amber Heard… Here we go. Now, I want to go easy on the people making this movie because I do feel bad to a certain degree. For those who don’t know, this movie ended up shooting between June 2021 and January 2022. This was all before the drama of the infamous Depp v. Heard trial. We did know some things leading up to it, but the defamation trial happened between April to June 2022. If I were in a position of power, I would have kept Amber Heard out of the movie as much as I could. Maybe write her out entirely. But that is easy for me to say when I am not dealing with millions upon millions of dollars. Speaking of which, this movie almost does not even need Amber Heard’s Mera to further the story. Yes, she is a mom now. But there is not really a ton explored there. We learn more about Arthur as a dad. We see him bonding with his dad and how he handles being a dad himself. Every scene featuring Mera could honestly be deleted with no harm done the final product. And Heard honestly sounds like she does not even want to be on screen. Her performance feels paper thin, although to be fair that precisely matches the ridiculous amount of incompetence the whole movie has.

The entire script comes off like it was written by a seven year old boy playing with his action figures and maybe borrowed a couple others that his dad was trying to keep in the box just because he was running out of ideas. Except in this case, that seven year old child is somehow obsessed with politics and meetings. This movie reeks of vibes that I must imagine most viewers must have gotten upon their initial watch of some of the “Star Wars” prequels. The dialogue is as sleep-inducing as melatonin, and as horribly delivered as a pie from Pizza Hut.

And as far as the action goes, it does not save the movie. Sure, maybe one or two moments look cool, but they don’t feel cool. It is the very definition of style over substance. Except in this case, even the style is not that great. The visual style of this movie pales in comparison to its predecessor. It has been years since I have watched the first “Aquaman,” but I remember being entranced by Atlantis and how fantastical everything looked. The movie has an intense color palette, but in such a way where the colors feel incredibly artificial. I took a television production class in high school and at the time, 4K was still growing. My teacher noted in that class that if something we shoot looks bad, then we should forget about 4K. Because it would look four times as awful. There are some scenes in this movie that look okay, but a number of them strike me as overly fake. I collect 4K Blu-rays. If I were to buy this movie on 4K Blu-ray, which judging by everything I am saying so far, I clearly have no plans to, I would be almost terrified to look at it sometimes.

The first “Aquaman” cost $160 million to make. This second film cost $205 million. I am astounded to say I think the first film looks ten times better than this one. Yes, some of the special effects are great. Yes, there is a comic book-esque look to the film in certain frames. Yes, the color grading works at times. Not all the time, but at times. Although even with these compliments, the movie is bombarded with so many drawbacks that it is almost difficult to acknowledge the positives even when they may deserve to be highlighted.

This movie has a couple instances of brief, almost blink you’ll miss it slo-mo. I know movies like “The Matrix Reloaded” and “The Legend of Hercules” may be notorious for their overuse of slow motion, but “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” may nevertheless have the single worst use of slow motion I have ever seen. At least those movies, despite how bad or unneeded the slow motion may be in them, feel like they are put there because someone committed to having them there. The slow motion sequences in “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” are so cheesy, so forced, so abrupt, and so unnecessary. They took a movie that was already bad and just made it slightly worse. Just like that. It is almost like I was in an editing class at a college or film school or something where someone was given a project and didn’t care about the quality other than filling the basic checkmarks. The professor is just gonna look at it and go, “Oh, slo mo! They get a point!” Not here.

Prior to seeing “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” my least favorite movie in the DCEU was “Wonder Woman 1984.” The dip in quality from “Aquaman” to “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is not quite as drastic as the dip from “Wonder Woman” to “Wonder Woman 1984,” but the dip feels pretty familiar. But when it comes to these sequels, looking back at “Wonder Woman 1984,” I found it to be flawed, but it still had a genuine spark to it that felt as if Patty Jenkins was putting her heart and soul into it. I do not fully doubt that James Wan tried his best with “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” but as I watched the movie, I could not help but imagine what was going on in Wan’s head as this was being made. This comes off less as a passion project and more as an obligation. Every choice in “Wonder Woman 1984” feels like something Patty Jenkins intended from the getgo. Almost every other scene in “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” feels haphazardly slapped together and spruced up with duct tape just to keep everything from falling apart. Oh my gosh, even the score in “Wonder Woman 1984” was memorable. Sure, there are good themes in “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” but come on. It’s a second class citizen compared to “Wonder Woman 1984.” To put a long story short, given everything I mentioned so far, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” has officially dethroned “Wonder Woman 1984” as my least favorite movie in the DCEU. There was a point in this movie, in the first act by the way, that I desperately wanted to fall asleep. That is probably the most glowing compliment I can give this movie, because on the bright side, I at least know if I am tired and need something to put me right out, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” makes for a dynamite option.

In the end, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” closes out the DCEU not with a bang, but a whimper. In my mind, I really want to call “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” the most watered down movie of 2023, but that would be too easy. I could say the movie was so bad I wanted to drown. But that’s also too easy. Instead, I am going to say this. “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” has the incompetence of “Batman & Robin” and the mundaneness of 2015’s “Fantastic 4.” It is so poorly made that I imagine if Martin Scorsese saw it with his own two eyes, he would set fire to every theme park on the planet. It is so boring that I would rather watch paint dry while tied to a chair in a windowless room. It is so mind-numbing that I would rather be stuck in an elevator with no phone, no working alarm, no lights on, and no sanity left to keep myself from screaming at the ceiling! “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is what happens when you take the DNA of a bad “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie, infuse it with the DNA of a bad “Indiana Jones” movie, and blend them together with a snoozefest of an underwater fantasy adventure created by a mastermind of idiocy. This is a cannibalization of cinema in every capacity. This. Movie. Blows.

Jason Momoa’s likability and charm cannot save this movie. He was somehow more interesting this year as a “Fast and Furious” villain and I have no idea how we have come to this reality. I know playing the bad guy is fun and all, but do you guys remember my thoughts on that movie? It is just about as bad as this!

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is one of the worst movies of the year. It is not worth your time. It is not worth your money. It is not worth your IQ points. It really hurts to know that the absolute highlight of the film for me is the mid-credits scene. It is not only the best part of the movie, it might also be the funniest. Speaking of which, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is a complete joke and I am going to give it a 2/10.

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is now playing theaters everywhere, unfortunately. Tickets are available now, not that I recommend you buy them.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Poor Things,” the brand new film from Yorgos Lanthimos. I just had a chance to see it this Friday and I will have it up very soon. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my best and worst movies of 2023! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom?” What did you think about it? Or, now that the universe has come to an end, what are your best and worst movies from the DCEU? For my favorite, I would have to say it is “The Suicide Squad,” and judging by this review, you could probably guess what my least favorite happens to be. But let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wonka (2023): A Sweet But Tired Prequel Whose Strength Comes from Old Tricks

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wonka” is directed by Paul King (Paddington, Space Force) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Call Me by Your Name), Calah Lane (This Is Us, Kidding), Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Paterson Joseph (Timeless, Peep Show), Matt Lucas (Come Fly with Me, Little Britain), Matthew Baynton (Ghosts, The Split), Sally Hawkins (Godzilla, The Shape of Water), Rowan Atkinson (Johnny English, The Lion King), Jim Carter (The Good Liar, Downton Abbey), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), and Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Joneses Diary). This film is about a young Willy Wonka who tries to open a chocolate shop in the hopes of making his dreams a successful reality. He must also deal with the greed of a chocolate cartel that looms over him.

I absolutely adore “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” When I was seven years old, I would watch that film almost every other night. I was equally as fascinated by some of Roald Dahl’s books, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” included. And if you all must know, I did watch the Tim Burton “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and while many of you will probably spew pitchforks at me, I do not just like the film, I kind of love it. It is simmered with the dark vibes of Wonka himself in every scene. Danny Elfman’s score is a banger. I really liked Freddie Highmore as Charlie. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka leaves a little to be desired though, that’s the one big downside. Both films, especially the latter, make me want to stuff my face in chocolate. That’s how good those films are.

Thus far, we have had a couple of “Wonka” features that I tended to enjoy, so when I heard they were doing this new one with Timothée Chalamet, I was onboard. He is one of the best young talents working today. He has range. He has a natural look to him. So I was curious to see what he can do in a film like this. The great news is that Chalamet slays in his performance. As far as the Wonka character goes, he is significantly better than Johnny Depp. He is no Gene Wilder, but one thing to note about these two roles is that they are basically interconnected. This is set long before the events of the original “Chocolate Factory” story and the film does a decent job at making these two interpretations interlink. They don’t feel like the exact same character, but when it comes to a bridge in the gap between these two, it is filled exquisitely. Chalamet’s take on Willy Wonka matches his younger age, upbeat personality, and the dreams that clog his mind. Both Wonkas emit a sense of wonder and joy in their mannerisms, but as I watch Chalamet’s take and think about him, he seems to have more of a heart and significantly more patience than Wilder’s. Credit is due to Paul King as well for his stellar direction, as it felt not only distinctive, but effective enough to allow Chalamet to bring one of the year’s better performances.

Unfortunately, the film is not all pure imagination. In fact, the best parts of the movie to me, are mostly those in reference to nostalgia or things that came before in say “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Pretty much everything that is new feels like a far cry.

Much like “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” “Wonka” is a musical. And there are callbacks to songs from the 1971 classic. The highlight of the film for me is the new take on the Oompa Loompa songs. They have new lyrics, new visuals, the whole nine yards. I thought those were well done, and it also helps that Hugh Grant sells the Oompa Loompa character to a tee.

The Hugh Grant Oompa Loompa might be my favorite character in the movie partially because of how Grant voices him. There is a certain snark factor to this character that I immediately welcomed. He also allowed for one of the better gags in the film during the second half. It is in the trailer, but having seen it in the film, it worked for me.

But with that Oompa Loompa bit aside, most of the musical numbers in this movie are some of the most forgettable and bland I have seen in ages. These are some of the most uninteresting musical numbers I have come across since 2021’s “Dear Evan Hansen.” As a movie, I liked “Wonka” better, but as a musical, this movie fails. Sure, there are rhymy timey lyrics, a lot of excuses for spectacles, all that jazz. That is what I come to expect in many musicals. But it is not a matter of it being in the movie, it is how it is done in the movie. I just wish the musical bits could have been done a little better.

The best way to describe “Wonka” to someone who has not seen the movie is that it is basically a Saturday morning cartoon come to life. Given the family friendly nature of the film and the musical aspect, that should not come as a surprise. In fact, Roald Dahl’s work, which this film is inspired by, has a very animated feel to it. Unfortunately though, if I were seven years old, I do not think I would be as transfixed by “Wonka” as I would hope to be. Maybe it would be one of those movies like “Attack of the Clones” that I like as a kid but grow up to realize it is not as good as I thought it was. To be honest, it is quite bland, it is a little boring at times. In fact, much like “Dear Evan Hansen,” I feel like the movie forces itself to be a musical at moments where it is better off staying closer to reality.

Sticking with the cartoony vibes, the antagonists of the film, specifically the chocolate cartel, feel rather mustache twirly. The movie does a terrible job at making these three look intimidating. The movie asks me to see them as bad people. And yes, objectively they are, but it is a matter of execution. There is almost no word I could use to describe this cartel other than unamusing. If anything, going back to the idea of “Wonka” basically being a live action cartoon, I theorize this film would be a lot better if they just went for the cartoon route and just animated it from start to finish. Heck, the musical scenes would pop more. The characters would come off as more appealing. In fact, many of the supporting characters like Bleacher (Tom Davis) and Mrs. Scrubbit (Olivia Colman) feel like they would lend themselves better to that style. If I had my way, I almost would want to see a 2D style animated movie set in this universe. I could imagine enormous potential with that concept. Unfortunately though, I don’t know how it would do at the box office, it would probably be a lot harder to market. But if word of mouth is good, maybe it would be worthwhile.

But if I have to be honest, the dialogue is unmemorable, the humor is metza metza, and the only performances in the movie I am going to fondly remember just so happen to be Timothee Chalamet as Willy Wonka and Calah Lane’s charming portrayal of Noodle. Both of those actors are the highlights of the film. They don’t always have the best chemistry, but going back to the dialogue, I am sure if I liked the dialogue better, maybe their chemistry would have worked better. Both actors seem to have done their best with the material handed to them. And as far as I am concerned, I have done my best on getting through this movie to call it one of the most average watches of the year.

In the end, “Wonka” was quite disappointing. The “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” property was a big part of my childhood. Unfortunately this latest addition to it is nowhere near as magical or scrumdiddlyumptious. When I watched the 1971 and 2005 Roald Dahl book adaptations, it made me want to eat chocolate afterwards. I was a kid in a candy store. This latest prequel made me feel like an old man getting ready for my latest shouting event directed at a cloud. Paul King likely put his heart and soul into this project, but it unfortunately resulted in something that was poorly paced, uneven, and barely watchable. There are better movies to watch at the cinema this holiday season, or you can just stay at home and watch the other films this property has delivered over the years. I would recommend those over this one. I am going to give “Wonka” a 5/10.

Also, we have had two adaptations of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” some other random takes on the property over the years, this prequel, and yet I have not seen a single “Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator” movie. Life is funny, isn’t it? Then again, having read both the “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” books, the original appears more cinematic as it progresses, but that’s probably just the way I see it for now.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Illumination’s “Migration.” Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “Poor Things.” 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 “Wonka?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Willy Wonka” or “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!