“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” 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” 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” 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!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! And welcome one and all to the final entry to the Ridley Scottober review series! If you want to check out my reviews for the other films in the series, such as “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World,” click the provided links and have a ball! Today we will be talking about one of my most rewatched movies in recent years, “Blade Runner.” Also, if you want to see a less professional, perhaps crappier example of my writing, I reviewed “Blade Runner 2049” back when it came out in 2017. I was less experienced, but still had a sense of a writing style of sorts. Check it out! Before we begin this review, I want to make something clear. On this blog, when I review a movie, it is typically of the initial version released in theaters or whatever platform it was designed for. With “Blade Runner,” this is no exception. For this review, I will be using the theatrical version of the film as a baseline. Maybe one day I will do my thoughts on “The Final Cut” as a separate post, which I have seen. But I am treating this movie the same way I treat just about every single other one I watch. That said, if you choose to stick around and read this review, enjoy your stay, make yourself at home, and let’s dive into one of Ridley Scott’s most talked about films.
“Blade Runner” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Duellists) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), Rutger Hauer (Nighthawks, Inside the Third Reich), Sean Young (Jane Austen in Manhattan, Stripes), and Edward James Olmos (Wolfen, Zoot Suit). This film is based on the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and centers around LAPD detective Rick Deckard as he is tasked with hunting down and retiring four Replicants who come to earth on a stolen ship in order to find their creator.
“Blade Runner” is one of those films that has had an impact on me since the first time I saw it back in 2017. In fact, this is not my first time talking about the film on this blog as I once did a post weeks after my initial viewing, talking about what the film got right about the future. Again, much like my “Blade Runner 2049” review, my quality of writing may have been a bit different at the time. Just a fair warning.
Little to my knowledge, “Blade Runner” would have a major influence on my academics. If you knew me in high school, there is a chance that you were with me in a film studies class. “Blade Runner” was the first and last feature film I ended up watching in the class given how much of the curriculum tended to use that film as a backbone of sorts. In college, I ended up choosing to study “Blade Runner” for a final project in my Television & Film Studies class. I have developed a passion for this movie, this property, and if the right people are involved, I would not mind seeing more of it. Judging by what I just said, you already know that this is going to be a positive review. If “Blade Runner” had a personality and made an effort to describe my relationship with it, it would probably channel Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part III” and say “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”
Sorry, “Blade Runner,” my days of discussing you are not over just yet.
But I cannot help it, because “Blade Runner” is a master class effort. I think it is a particularly unique film. And it has done a lot to influence many stories that came after. The film is based on Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” which a number of claim is the earliest example of cyberpunk. This sub-genre has remained popular over the years with titles across various mediums like “Akira,” “The Fifth Element,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Altered Carbon,” and “Cyberpunk 2077” just to name a few. It is easy to get lost in a good movie with proper atmosphere, and when it comes to the cyberpunk nature of “Blade Runner,” getting lost in 2019 Los Angeles, or at least what this movie makes it out to be, is as easy as pie.
One of the basic rules of filmmaking is to show, not tell. And that is going to be an ongoing theme in this review. Because everything this movie shows is remarkable. There are tons of practical effects that are beautiful to the naked eye. The production design for this film is off the charts. There are very few films that are like this one aesthetically, and I say that knowing how much cyberpunk has evolved over the years. This film released in the 1980s, a time where cars looked quite different than they do today. And when I look at the vehicles in “Blade Runner,” they definitely have a look at the time that screams futuristic, but I admire how they seem to carry a vintage charm to them. I could totally buy the design of Deckard’s spinner in the film, even if it seems to look a bit like something from the time this movie came out.
Framing-wise, this is one of the coolest-looking films I have ever seen. Despite the film claiming it is set in Los Angeles, it feels like a different kind of environment. This film, at least at the time it came out, is science fiction. There is also a bit of a film noir undertone as well. This movie’s use of the color blue throughout is vivid in my memory. The color palette always packs in a blue tone. You can see hints of bluish lighting throughout the film. And one nice little touch in the background during various scenes are the many umbrellas going about the streets. Their handles have a bluish neon glow to them, almost like Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber in the early “Star Wars” installments. Speaking of “Star Wars,” one of my favorite Easter eggs about “Blade Runner,” if you pay close attention, is that there is a building in the film that resembles the look of the Millennium Falcon, Han Solo’s ship. And to top it off, Han Solo’s respective actor, literally plays the main character of this movie!
Sticking on the topic of things that look cool, one of the most intriguing designs in the whole film is the Tyrell Skyscraper. This building is utilized throughout multiple portions of the movie, and every time I look at it, I cannot help but stare in awe and wonder. The inside is enormous and carries a robust flair to it. From the outside with the help of lights shining through the windows, it looks screensaver-worthy. I also admire how the pyramid design allows for tons of incline elevators to be put in place throughout the premises. If you know me in real life, I am a bit of an elevator geek. If I were in the “Blade Runner” universe, one of the first things I would do is go into the Tyrell Skyscraper just to ride the elevator.
But just because this movie shows all sorts of cool things, does not mean it tells all sorts of cool things. Now to be fair, the dialogue in this film is minimalistic and it is perfect. There are plenty of scenes where the characters are completely quiet or there are inklings of silence. If you watched other versions of the movie, this will not matter, but if you watch the original version, there is a chance you may remember Harrison Ford’s character, Deckard, not only serving the film as a protagonist, but as a first-person narrator. While there are moments where the narration is not that much of a big deal, there are some that overexplain what is happening, and others that ruin the visual experience of this movie. One of the highlights of this film for me, from a visual perspective, is the scene where we see Deckard and Gaff inside the spinner, flying through a darkened Los Angeles. The aerial shots really help encapsulate the beauty of the city, even with a supposed sense of gloom in its people. The problem is, the scene, which has no dialogue from the characters, also features narration from Harrison Ford that sort of overembellishes the idea of cityspeak, a mix of pre-established languages. It is not really something I would need to know or care to know on my first viewing. It honestly reminds me of when I watch certain broadcasts of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” on ABC, and Ryan Seacrest is talking up a storm as I am trying to take in the first moments of the new year. I am basically trying to hear the crowd, listen to Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York,” and feel like I am there with everyone. But much like Seacrest’s voice on those occasions, Harrison Ford’s voice is nothing more than added noise. At the end of the day, it does not do much to benefit the film. There are a couple voiceovers that do not colossally damage the experience, but there are plenty that are better left unused. This is especially true for one used towards the end of the film where a crucial character’s arc is fulfilled. We are seeing this moment play out, and I am enjoying every second. Then it is suddenly interrupted with voiceover lines from Harrison Ford that basically spitballs what is happening for the audience, instead of allowing them to take in the lesson from the narration themselves. It is kind of insulting the more I think about it.
That said, I watched a documentary on the making of this movie, “Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner.” And if you have the Blu-ray edition of “The Final Cut,” you can watch it yourself. Harrison Ford revealed not only that he thought the narration, which was added due to poor test screenings, was awful, but he ended up doing it with reluctance. Ford was contractually obligated to complete the lines, so he did what he had to do. He tried his best with the material, but he did not think it was necessary.
Though speaking of Harrison Ford giving his best effort, his performance as Rick Deckard is perfect. The character easily blends into his increasingly depressing environment. He is the kind of guy who will not take any nonsense from anyone, but also kind of has a softer side on occasion. There is nothing overblown about this character, especially when you compare him to some of Harrison Ford’s earlier performances, like those he previously gave as Han Solo. In fact, much of what makes Ford’s character believable in his environment is his tendency to remain quiet during certain scenes, which is balanced perfectly by the mannerisms of this film’s antagonist, Roy Batty.
While Harrison Ford may be the most iconic face in the movie, I think the award for best performance in this film easily goes to Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. I have no idea if Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, this film’s writers, wrote this character with any particular actor in mind, but Hauer is one of the best castings for an antagonist perhaps in the history of cinema. There is a ton of range in a character like this one. When we first see him, his execution of the film’s dialogue is quite direct and to the point. It is almost kind of robotic, which should play into the fact that he is a Replicant. But as we go through the film, there is a continued sense of humanity that develops within this character. You can hear it in his voice, and even his physicality. I said there is a balance between Batty and Deckard, and I mean that wholeheartedly. It is perfectly displayed in the film’s climax, which is not particularly the most epic of climaxes, but it is one that serves the movie to perfection. That said, while I am ultimately rooting for Deckard, I cannot help but admire Batty throughout the climax because every other line out of him sounds like a grounded cartoon. This may be weird to say, but having rewatched this film for review purposes, the dynamic between these characters in the climax almost reminds me of a father and son playing tag or chasing each other around the house. It almost feels carefree even though there are higher stakes involved. Well, that, and there are moments where Batty twists Deckard’s fingers to get revenge.
The movie also kind of ends on a weird note. Again, this is the original cut we are talking about. There is a final scene, which believe it or not, uses footage that was originally made for Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining,” it is unbelievably rushed, and kind of uneven when consider how most of the film is paced. “Blade Runner” is kind of a slow burn, and by the time we get to this scene, it kind of kicks things up a gear or two. It is really weird. Overall, it is an abrupt scene. And while I definitely prefer the more open ending offered in future versions, I think if this movie were trying to go for a more upbeat ending, they probably could have gone for a longer scene. This scene is too quick, too in your face, and appears to be the result of a last minute decision that likely was not even on Ridley Scott’s mind while making his way through much of the film’s production.
Doing this review in 2023, I realize that some of the problems I have with the movie are those that tend to bog down the original cut and eventually get changed in later versions. That said, there is one problem I have with this movie that has lingered with me for years. While I think Sean Young and Harrison Ford have fabulous chemistry together as Rachel and Deckard, and every scene delivers the best out of each actor, I am not a fan of how their love blossoms. If you can call it that. This movie is written by two men, and I am sure that if a woman were credited with the screenplay, the scene where Rachel and Deckard first embrace their love for each other would have been handled differently. Basically, Rachel is trying to leave Deckard’s residence, but before she can get out, she is barricaded by Deckard, preventing her from making an exit, and pushed to a window. The two do end up embracing each other and confirming their love for each other, but the way it happens feels for starters, unrealistic, but also, kind of unsettling. It reminds me of another movie I have rewatched several times over the years, “Revenge of the Nerds,.” In that movie, sure, Betty and Lewis end up confirming their love, or perhaps more accurately at the time, lust, for each other. But the way that initiates is from Lewis basically assaulting her if you break it down. And much like “Revenge of the Nerds,” I will not deny that “Blade Runner” has reminded me of my love for movies in one way or another. But if I had to name a standout flaw with both films, and it is a monumental one, it would be a central love connection that may seem believable in the end due to proper chemistry, but is initiated in a way that can described as off-putting and erroneous.
As mentioned, “Blade Runner” is an example of cyberpunk, which likely takes inspiration from large cityscapes, but in a way, puts them on steroids. That said, even with a somewhat over the top nature provided throughout this movie’s interpretation of Los Angeles, everything around the city in terms of the environments and characters felt completely grounded. There is rarely a moment of this movie that I could not buy. This movie also manages to insert, for the most part, believable product placement. After all, it is set in a major city, so tons of advertising is to be expected. But from the very beginning, the frame is often bombarded with neon, noise, or product acknowledgments from companies like Budweiser or Coca-Cola. Ridley Scott manages to deliver an atmosphere with “Blade Runner” that not only emits realism, but for the entire runtime, makes me feel like I am there.
Though if I had to finish this review with one thing, it is that few movies, in fact few franchises for that matter, tend to answer the question, “What is human?”, like this one. I think Roy Batty, despite being an android, is perhaps one of the greatest encapsulations of that question in the history of film. We see him from the very start of his journey wanting more life. It is established that Replicants tend to have a four-year lifespan. Obviously, most humans live a lot longer, and that is something that he is trying to achieve. But if anything, this movie shows that life is not something you should take for granted. I am 23 years old. In fact, as I am writing this review, I am going to be 24 in just over a week. This movie reminds me to enjoy the moment, even in the darkest of times. Even in a city where the rain never stops, there may be one or two moments of sunshine. This movie may be set in a depressing future, but it is one where beings tend to find inklings of joy to keep themselves busy, whether that inkling can be defined as enjoying some noodles, playing chess, or fiddling with a piano. The beauty of “Blade Runner,” despite coming off as a slow burn and a thinker film, is its simplicity. At its core, “Blade Runner” is about a cop trying to stop a group of targets before it is too late. Everything else is just a bonus, and a mighty bonus it is. Because as far as I am concerned, there is a reason why I have rewatched this film so many times over the years, because it is that good.
Oh, and to answer the often debated question amongst fans, Deckard is a Replicant.
In the end, “Blade Runner” is one of Ridley Scott’s best films, even with its flaws. Again, a lot of the flaws I have in this review did get resolved, but I imagine if I did watch “Blade Runner” back in 1982, I would be having a ball with it. Unfortunately, the film did not do too well when it came out. It polarized critics, made an underwhelming amount at the box office, and possibly suffered from studio notes. Having to compete with another excellent and successful film, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” probably did not make things any easier. Even with that in mind, the film has a lot to offer. Exciting action, likable characters, incredible story arcs, life lessons, captivating writing, stellar direction, brilliant lighting, and stunning effects that make a number of modern movies that rely on CGI pale in comparison aesthetically. I must add, Vangelis’s score is also an absolute banger. “Blade Runner” is one of the best-looking movies I have ever seen, and it is hard to believe it looks this good over forty years later. But these looks are supplemented by a narrative that did nothing more than grabbed my attention and kept it for a couple of glorious hours. I am going to give “Blade Runner” a very high 8/10.
Again, if I were reviewing “The Final Cut,” I might honestly give a higher score. But I am treating this review the same way I am treating the other ones I typically do. And if you want me to be honest with you, as much as I love the original “Blade Runner,” it feels odd to say because I have not watched it in a while, but I honestly think “Blade Runner 2049” is the superior installment. It has all the positives of the original movie, but does some things to improve on it as well. Much like the original, that is another film that I have watched incessantly. In fact it finished as my runner-up for best movie of the 2010s. And if I could go back and do my review of it again, I would give it a 10/10 if I had the chance. Few films made me escape my reality and bring me to another world like that one did. I highly recommend if it is a rainy day, do a “Blade Runner” double feature. Both movies are absolutely worth your time and are two of the finest examples of what sci-fi can be.
“Blade Runner” is now available on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available through various streaming services.
Thanks for reading this review! And I hope you enjoyed my entries to the Ridley Scottober review series! I had a lot of fun doing these. I got to check out some films I have never seen before, in addition to watching one for the umpteenth time. I had a blast doing these and I hope you had fun reading them. If you want to see more reviews, good news! I have more coming soon! I will soon share my thoughts on “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” 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 “Blade Runner?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite science fiction movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy October! Or should I say, Ridley Scottober! What is Ridley Scottober? Well, throughout the month of October, I will be reviewing four movies directed by Ridley Scott! I wanted to do this because in addition to getting one themed review done this year, I might as well prepare myself for Ridley Scott’s upcoming feature, “Napoleon,” which so far has won me over with the marketing. I cannot wait to see it. Let’s kick things off with the first review in the series, “Body of Lies,” Scott’s 2008 spy thriller.
“Body of Lies” is directed by Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Aviator), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), Mark Strong (Stardust, Babylon A.D.), Golshifteh Farahani (M for Mother, Half Moon), Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story, Law & Order: Criminal Intent), and Simon McBurney (The Golden Compass, Friends with Money). This film centers around a CIA agent named Roger Ferris, who attempts to track down a terrorist leader in Jordan.
I owned the Blu-ray for this film for almost six full years, and yet I have not watched this film for the first time until only last month. On the cover, there is a lot to like. Between Ridley Scott’s name behind the scenes, in addition to DiCaprio and Crowe’s names standing out for the talent on camera. All of these people, not just today, but even back in 2008 have proven their worth. In fact, “Body of Lies” is not the first rodeo between Scott and Crowe, as the two have worked together multiple times before, therefore it shows they have a solid business relationship. The same cannot be said for Leonardo DiCaprio, but I am sure both individuals brought plenty of promise to each other at the time of production. When you have these three names together, it equally brings a lot of promise to the audience.
Unfortunately though, while the promises of this film do not appear to be empty, they do not feel like they were entirely met. Now, these three individuals do an okay job in the film. But I cannot say that this film comes off as the pinnacle of any of their resumes. Whether we are talking about a collective or individual effort. All three have done better things before, all three have done better things after. In fact, of the Ridley Scott pictures I have seen, this is one of the more pedestrian ones he has made.
The movie is shot well, like many other Ridley Scott pictures. In fact, this was shot by Alexander Witt. This is the first proper cinematography credit in a feature film. Much of his work prior, not to mention after, was as a part of a second unit, but this time around he is on the front lines. The way the camera is used in “Body of Lies” for the most part provides for a bit of an uneasy vibe. After all, that is what the film should be beyond its surface, it is a soldier vs. terrorist sort of rivalry. “Body of Lies” is a film that at times puts you in the middle of the action, but it does not have enough oomph to make me run out on the streets and recommend this film to others. Although if there is one additional positive to point out, the color palette of this film perfectly establishes its overall atmosphere. It has this moody feel to it, but it supplies itself in such a way where everything around it still manages to pack in a tad of thrills and excitement. It was easy on the eyes.
Speaking of beginnings, I am pleased to report that this film is one of the early roles from Oscar Isaac, who I think is one of the better performers who has tended to lend himself to content within the spectrum of popular culture over the years. This is not his first role. Isaac was previously in films like “All About the Benjamins” and “The Nativity Story.” But I think this film shows how solid of an actor he was early in his career. Despite his first name, he is not on an Oscar level here, but he is one of the standouts in this film for me, which says something considering who the two leads happen to be.
This film stars Russell Crowe in addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, and when it comes to the former, it is clearly established that he is a dad. Particularly, one who is heavily involved in the lives of his young children. This allows for an ongoing gag where his character is doing things for his children all the while trying to balance work. We see him on the phone with Leonardo DiCaprio completing important calls all the while either doing something such as taking his kids somewhere or tending to them. While this is a great way to establish a character’s background, the amount of time spent exposing this feels like overkill. I do not know if they were trying to be funny with this tendency, after all this is a thriller, not a comedy. Sure, maybe if I were a parent myself, which I am not, maybe I could relate to this gag. And the more I think about it, seeing this sort of reminds me of seeing my mom taking calls over the years while I am in her presence given her line of work. But when it comes to this gag, it feels like too much delivered in my face. The phone gag feels like the one moment that the movie is going for humor. But because everything else, for the most part, comes off as serious, the only reaction I have as this is going on is silence. I am not saying this should not be in the movie, it serves a purpose as to establishing the characters, but I think it overembellishes itself at times.
The narrative, in terms of progression, character development, and concept, all get the job done. There is nothing remotely broken that I can point out about the film in terms of how everything in it is laid out story-wise. All the characters work. The chemistry works. The concept works. And that is the best way that I can sum up “Body of Lies.” It is not a film that is overly offensive. But it is also not a film that I walked out of thinking that it is a game changer. It is a film that I think some people would kill their first born child in order to have it be as good as it is. But when it comes to the reputation of Ridley Scott, who continues to be one of the more respected filmmakers working today, this feels kind of bland. There is a reason why nobody is talking about “Body of Lies” all these years later and instead bringing up other films like “Blade Runner” and “Thelma & Louise.” It’s because those films made a mark on its viewers culturally and managed to deliver something special. And yes, “Body of Lies” is exciting at times and there are moments where the intrigue is there, but it is not enough for me to say I would watch it again in the next few months. Maybe it would make for good background noise if I find it randomly on cable, but that is probably the extent of it.
If there are any other highlights I can point out, I did like the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Roger Ferris, and his love interest he meets along the way. Said love interest, Aisha, is played by Golshifteh Farahani. I thought the two had solid chemistry and every moment they were on screen together, they clicked. They probably had the best connection in the entire movie. Their bond was fun to watch.
In the end, “Body of Lies” is… Fine, I guess. When I bought the Blu-ray six years ago, I was quite intrigued to know that Ridley Scott was behind it. I was intrigued by the big names on the cover. There was a lot of potential. The potential here is not wasted, but it does not mean the film doesn’t underwhelm. There is nothing about this movie that makes me angry, but there is nothing about this movie that makes me think I should go back to it anytime soon. Ridley Scott is a respected filmmaker. And while this may be an okay movie for some people, this may not be the finest Ridley Scott movie. I am going to give “Body of Lies” a 6/10.
“Body of Lies” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming. As of this writing, it is available on Max to all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this first installment to the Ridley Scottober series, guess what? I’ve got three more coming! I don’t think the next review is gonna be on Saturday like this one. To be frank, I wanted to get this review out a little earlier, but I have had a pretty busy week. And I honestly have a busy week next week too, because I’m gonna be on vacation in New York, but I should have some time to whip something up. I’m gonna be on a train for three to four hours, so I can definitely do something. Maybe I will drop the review Thursday. I am kind of playing this series by ear at this point. But if you want to see another one of my reviews for a Ridley Scott movie I did a couple years back, check out my thoughts on “The Last Duel!” That should hold you all over for some time. 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 “Body of Lies?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie from a respected filmmaker that you think may be one of their inferior works? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Meg 2: The Trench” is directed by Ben Wheatley (Rebecca, Free Fire) and stars Jason Statham (Furious 7, The Transporter), Wu Jing (Wolf Warrior, The Wanderers), Sophia Cai (Mr. Corman, Something Only We Know), Page Kennedy (S.W.A.T., Blue Mountain State), Segio Peris-Mencheta (Snowfall, Rambo: Last Blood), Skyler Samuels (Wizards of Waverly Place, Scream Queens), Sienna Guillory (Eragon, Resident Evil: Apocalypse), and Cliff Curtis (Avatar: The Way of Water, Fear the Walking Dead). This film is a sequel to the 2018 shark movie “The Meg” and once again centers around Jonas Taylor, who collaborates with a research team to uncover the many mysteries of a trench and the potential threats that lie within. The film is also inspired by the book “The Trench” by Steve Alten.
I got a good kick out of “The Meg” back when it came out five years ago. I did not think it reinvented shark movies, but when it comes to pure summer fun, that film was obscenely enjoyable. In fact, given how that film came out in the 2010s, the “Sharknado” franchise, which yes, are technically TV films, but still, were heavily on my mind at the time. I watched them, probably because deep down I must have liked torture. But I am kind of glad I watched the “Sharknado” films because when it comes to “The Meg,” they influenced my opinion towards the film. It feels like “The Meg” took the vibe from a “Sharknado” type of film, gave it a bigger budget, and added more pizzazz. I thought if they could keep that mentality going into the second movie, we could be in for yet another fine summer popcorn outing. I was looking forward to “Meg 2: The Trench.”
And just as I wanted, the marketing lived up to my expectations. It looked like it was going to be heavy on Jason Statham being awesome, marvelous visual spectacles, and shark action. It looked like colossal summer fun and I did not care if I ended up giving the film a barely passable score, because it did look like it would meet those terms, but it would have been one of the more memorable barely passable films I have come across if that were the case. Despite my barely passable score for the original “Meg,” I still think about it on a regular basis because I had a great experience watching it. And it actually managed to emit some shock for me in terms of its screenplay. While definitely not Shakespeare, I was pleasantly surprised as to where the movie would end up going.
When it comes to “The Meg,” that “Sharknado” comparison stands true today. Speaking of comparisons, I am happy to declare that “Meg 2: The Trench” makes “The Meg” look like “Jaws.”
Looking back, what must have tied “The Meg” together nicely is that it presents itself in a nice, solid pace. It is a pace that allows for crazy shark mayhem with some other moments to breathe in order to balance everything out. Sure, the first act is a tad dull at times, but the movie manages to work the more it builds. When it comes to “Meg 2: The Trench,” shark mayhem and moments to breathe also make their presence known, but when it comes to the faster paced shark scenes, I am not thinking about those as consistently as the moments that bored me. Maybe it is because I had, I am not going to say high, but moderate at best expectations going into this film. I really liked the first one, and even if this film barely scratches the surface of what the original delivered, it would still be a decent time. But it was not. This film is subtitled “The Trench,” but quite frankly, much of what involved the trench as the film went on made me tune out. It kind of made me sleepy. It made me fall into a trench of dreams.
And sticking with the topic of balance, when it comes to transitioning the horror aspect of “The Meg” from the franchise’s predecessor to this film, the results are not that great. The scares are cheap and uninteresting. The first film had a fine balance between action and scares. When it comes to the latter, it carries a significant absence this time around.
Despite my complaints about this movie, I will admit one positive consistency from the last film that is seen in this one happens to be the charm of Jason Statham. I am not going to pretend that Statham gives an Oscar-caliber performance or anything. In fact, in some ways, he seems to be playing a variation of himself. But when it comes to instant charm, he emits it throughout his entire time on screen. In fact, I like where they take his character when it comes to transitioning between the film’s events. Because we see he has become some sort celebrity figure because of his shark encounter. I like how the movie handles this aspect in particular.
I said “The Meg” is basically “Sharknado” if it were more down to earth and had a bigger budget. It is the kind of the thing that looks real and barely puts itself below a brain-melting threshold. “Meg 2: The Trench” honestly is what “Sharknado” would be if it were made for the big screen instead of Syfy. There are select moments in this film that jump the shark. Literally. And I am sometimes okay with an occasional whiffing away from reality every once in a while if the results are good. But in this case, they are not. There is one moment where one of the characters have to latch themselves onto a helicopter before they are executed by an explosion. By the time the explosion expands into the helicopter, part of me wonders how the fleeing individual even made it onboard. I could not believe my eyes. And that is ultimately what this movie is. A sight to behold. Except when it comes to the sights, they are not fun to look at. This film somehow looks worse than its predecessor. And that includes the trench, which I will remind you again, is in the title!
If anything, “Meg 2: The Trench” looks like an enhancement of our world, and I do not mean that in a good way. Everything in this film, and I kind of mean everything, looks too clean. All of it looks palatable, but yet it does not *feel* real. It kind of reminds me of what some people think of the “Star Wars” prequels. And unfortunately everything surrounding the shiny coat fail to make my time spent watching this film worthwhile. The screenplay and dialogue are extremely predictable at times. The supporting characters are beyond forgettable. And while this movie surprisingly has some halfway decent visual storytelling, it is also met with various scenes that did not offer any engagement. There is a lot of shark action by the end. But to be frank with you, I do not remember all of it, and to get to that shark action, you have to sit through the film equivalent of being tied to a chair with a gun to your head, and the only way you can survive is by fully reading through every word of a terms and services agreement. Between “Fast X” and now this garbage, Jason Statham is honestly not putting out his best work in 2023.
In the end, “Meg 2: The Trench” is a hot, watery mess. When it comes to shark movies, it is hard to know if we will ever see anything that surpasses “Jaws,” but with “Meg 2: The Trench,” today is not that day. If you want a halfway decent shark movie, “The Meg” is right there. Skip this one. Jason Statham is charming and there are some occasionally campy moments that can be considered fun, but they fail to match the joy of the first film. This film is dull, uninteresting, and by 2023 standards, the visual effects might not be up to par. Although that last part might be a little unfair because it is hard to match the look of “Avatar: The Way of Water.” I am going to give “Meg 2: The Trench” a 3/10.
“Meg 2: The Trench” is now playing in theaters. The film is also available to buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bottoms” and “A Haunting in Venice!” This weekend, I also plan to watch “The Creator” and “Dumb Money,” so I will have even more posts in the pipeline! 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 “Meg 2: The Trench?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the two “Meg” installments? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Blue Beetle” is directed by Ángel Manuel Soto (Charm City Kings, Menudo: Forever Young) and stars Xolo Maridueña (Parenthood, Cobra Kai), Adriana Barraza (Babel, Drag Me to Hell), Damian Alcazar (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Narcos), Bruna Marquezine (En Familia, Breaking Through), Raoul Trujillo (Apocolypto, Sicario), Susan Sarandon (Thelma & Louise, The Rocky Horror Picture Show), and George Lopez (George Lopez, Rio). This film is about Jaime Reyes, a recent college grad who is given powers courtesy of an alien scarab. Now in possession of his newfound abilities, he must use his new tricks to save his family, and the world.
Comic book movie fatigue… They are the three words that a plethora of people watching entertainment appear to spew every now and again, until it suddenly goes away. As for myself, I can say it is something I have never experienced. I have loved comic book movies ever since I was a kid, and I continue to do so today. Even if a talented filmmaker like Martin Scorsese calls them theme parks, it has not stopped me from endorsing them. In fact, throughout the decade, we have gotten a couple bangers like “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” In fact, just this year, we saw “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” which is now in contention to be amongst my top 5, if not top 3, comic book movies of all time. It is a one of a kind, game-changing, and earth-shattering addition to the genre. It has a certain kind of specialty to it that I have not witnessed in years. Despite being spoiled with “Across the Spider-Verse” recently, which somehow surpassed my monumental expectations, I will say “Blue Beetle” on the other hand had me less interested going into it.
Now let me be clear, I have seen every DCEU movie thus far. Everything from “Man of Steel” to “Birds of Prey.” I even saw “Wonder Woman 1984” in theaters. I even saw the last two that I have come to realize a lot of people ended up skipping. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” and “The Flash.” And honestly, both movies are quite good. They’re nowhere near perfect, but they delivered plenty of joy, brought some cool action to the table, and I had a lot of fun watching both. “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” definitely had its cliches, but I still had a blast watching it. “The Flash” had a well executed story, a great protagonist, and a couple clever sequences. Admittedly, I kind of understand why “The Flash” did not do well for the most part. If you skipped the movie because of Ezra Miller, I am not going to hold that against you. It is the same thing I said about “West Side Story” when it comes to Ansel Elgort at the time. That said, Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” is excellent and has my full endorsement. You absolutely should watch it if you have not done so already.
But I imagine part of why DCEU movies have not done so well recently can contribute to a number of factors in addition the recent Ezra Miller shenanigans. Less than stellar marketing. Interesting release date choices. Underusing core characters like Batman and Superman. Making some movies rated R, therefore excluding the younger audience. Although given how it gave us “The Suicide Squad,” I have no complaints.
From the beginning, audiences lost their trust in the brand early. I liked a lot of the DCEU, but it does not change the fact that most of these movies play second fiddle to the MCU, which has defined comic book cinema for years. Since the pandemic started, every single one of these movies underperformed at the box office to some degree (granted, some went straight to HBO Max). Even “Black Adam” ended up making less money than I would have expected. But can “Blue Beetle” change things or is it too little too late?
Well… Given how James Gunn and Peter Safran are going to hit the reset button pretty soon I think the latter may be the more definitive answer in this case. But in reality, if you want to know my thoughts on “Blue Beetle,” I walked out of the movie having a good time. Much like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” this definitely relies on known beats to further things along. But as I have said about certain films, familiar things can work if they are done well, and that is the case with “Blue Beetle.”
The story and the rivalry it forms feels very been there done that. Basically, someone is creating an advanced machine that can potentially be utilized for war, and now it has to be stopped before things get out of hand. The technology of interest from Kord Industries in this film felt very much like something from Stark Industries. But what makes this giant tech company work is the protagonist’s developed connection to it.
After all, Jaime is a recent college grad. As someone who graduated college in the past year and a half, I found myself in a somewhat similar rut to Jaime at this point of his life. Basically, now that college is over, he is trying to find a job, but he cannot get anything no matter how hard he tries. That was my life for an extended period until I found myself in a couple positions right now that I am happy with. One of my favorite lines in this film is something I have always wondered on my job search. Jaime at one point asks how he is going to get experience if no one is going to give him a job. It is honestly one of the most relatable sentences I have ever heard. How can one prove themselves if they are never given the chance to do so?
One of the reasons why I was somewhat worried. Not completely worried, but somewhat worried, about “Blue Beetle” is that prior to the release of the film, it was announced that the film would go straight to HBO Max, or Max as it is now called. That was also going to be the case for a “Batgirl” movie starring Leslie Grace, which eventually got scrapped. As much as I am not a fan of the way certain things have been handled at Warner Bros. recently under David Zaslav, I will defend the scrapping of “Batgirl” because I worry its release would have done more harm than good for DC, which is already somewhat weak in the public eye to a certain degree. On the other hand, “Blue Beetle” got promoted to a theatrical release. The way all movies should be shown in my opinion… But this had me weary about the overall look of the film. Would it look too artificial? Too fake? Would the CGI look like something from many years ago?
Thankfully, that is not the case. In fact, I think of all the DC movies that have come out this year, “Blue Beetle” may be the best looking of all of them. I can drop a compliment for all the DCEU titles and their looks this year. I even thought “The Flash” looked okay at times, but I think there are a few moments of painfully obvious CGI or green screen. But this film is colorful, bright, and has a lively feel to it at all times. It does not look like a straight to streaming title, which may be a small part of why it got promoted in the first place. Like many entries of the comic book movie genre, there are some occasionally obvious effects, but even those are not dealbreakers. They never took me out of the movie. But the ultimate question is… Does “Blue Beetle” look like it was made for television? That would be a no. I have seen better looking movies of this caliber, but I have also seen worse. That said, I am not going to pretend this is on the level of “Avengers: Endgame.”
Again, when it comes to the comic book movie genre, I think it is obvious that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is king when it comes to that market. But I would say even their better movies like “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Doctor Strange” fall by the wayside when it comes to the villain. One of the more prominent positives I have with “Blue Beetle” is the fact that the villain is actually kind of intimidating. Susan Sarandon does a pretty good job with the material given to her as Victoria Kord. Granted, if I had one complaint about her it is that she does emit some nearly one-dimensional mustache-twirly vibes every once in a while. Yet with that in mind, she still plays the part perfectly. But first impressions often matter in movie, and I knew from the very beginning, through decent on-screen execution, that I was not supposed to like this character.
Ultimately, it is the antagonist’s intimidation in this film that only makes the protagonist’s journey all the more exciting. I enjoyed watching Xolo Maridueña not only as the Blue Beetle in action, but as his other self, Jaime Reyes. A foundation of a lot of great comic book superheroes are the people behind the mask, and that is why despite the vast number of Spider-Man stories we have seen over the years, I will not deny the instant charm of Peter Parker, no matter who is playing him. Well… Okay, I don’t think Andrew Garfield truly shined as his Peter persona until “No Way Home.” But what makes Reyes work is that classic superhero/personal life balance that suddenly enters his life. While he is busy following his task of saving the world, he also has his family, he has a new love interest, he has to find a career. But balancing all of that becomes a bit harder with his newfound responsibilities. The marketing of “Blue Beetle” very much forwards the notion that the protagonist does not want to be in the situation he finds himself in. While in some cases it may not be exciting to have a protagonist who wants to avert from adventure, “Blue Beetle” makes it work to the best of its ability. Going back to Peter Parker, he makes the choice to be who he is because his mentor dies. He chose the superhero life. With Jaime Reyes, the superhero life chose him before he could turn back. Sure, Reyes took his responsibility into his own hands, and despite some initial aversion, he may have found glimmers of fun in his journey, but his resistance to his powers become a driving force throughout the much of the film. This whole idea is kind of relatable. If I suddenly became a superhero, awesome. I would love to fly around in the air and wave hi to people on a plane. But if that power came with some extra outside factors, I would like to know about them before going any further.
As for other standouts in the film, I would have to say I really enjoyed Reyes’s family. All of them are well portrayed by their respective actors, well-written, and by the end of the film, they kind of gave me the same joy that I got from say the Parrs in “The Incredibles.” This may also feel kind of gimmicky, but I always enjoy seeing an elderly woman, in this movie’s case, the character of Nana, wielding a machine gun and going to town with it, which does happen by the film’s end. The film has some genuinely fun, joyous moments, and I left the cinema with a smile on my face. While it may not be the next “Anchorman,” “Blue Beetle” has some funny moments in it as well.
As a comic book movie, “Blue Beetle,” like “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” kind of scratches the surface and relies on some familiar beats. But I will not lie and say that they made for a well-structured, well-paced, and entertaining story. I even enjoyed the climax of the film, which does feel a bit familiar, but it ends in such a way where I admired the thinking of the characters in the situation. Speaking of the characters, all of them emit charm and come off as people I would want to hang out with.
In the end, “Blue Beetle” is a really good time. This movie honestly deserves to do better than it is doing right now. As of this writing, the film’s box office total has surpassed its budget. That said, it probably would need to make anywhere around two to three times that to break even. I am not going to pretend I am loving everything Warner Brothers is up to right now, but I am always happy to see when a film I like succeeds. But if you want a great movie to watch about a compelling family with a fascinating hero in the center of it all, I recommend “Blue Beetle.” I think of the DC movies that have come out this year, this is my favorite one they have done. It is a far cry from my favorite DCEU entry, “The Suicide Squad,” but if you are looking for something to watch in the theater right now, this is a solid option. It might even be good to watch with family. There is one intense scene that may be hard to watch, but other than that, this is a fine family movie night option. I am going to give “Blue Beetle” a 7/10.
“Blue Beetle” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Speaking of intense movie moments that may be hard to watch with your family, my next review is going to be for the brand new R-rated comedy “Strays.” Stay tuned! Also look forward to my reviews for “Gran Turismo,” “Meg 2: The Trench,” and “Bottoms!” 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 “Blue Beetle?” What did you think about it? Or would you want superpowers? Why or why not? And if you do want them, which would you like to have if you could only choose one? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Barbie” is directed by Greta Gerwig (Little Women, Lady Bird) and stars Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, The Wolf of Wall Street), Ryan Gosling (Blade Runner 2049, La La Land), America Ferrera (How to Train Your Dragon, Superstore), Kate McKinnon (Saturday Night Live, Yesterday), Issa Rae (The Lovebirds, The Hate U Give), Rhea Perlman (Canadian Bacon, Poms) and Will Ferrell (Step Brothers, Elf). This film is about a Barbie doll (Robbie) who suddenly suffers a crisis that turns her whole world upside down.
If you asked me how excited I was when I heard they were making a “Barbie” movie, the answer probably would have been somewhere around zero. I had no excitement whatsoever. Though once I heard Margot Robbie would be playing the lead role, that excitement boosted up a bit. She has continued to boost her profile as an actress, even if her movies end up being either not the best in terms of quality or box office. When it comes to looks, I do not think there is another actress that would match Robbie when it comes to playing a Barbie doll. Obviously, this movie has other Barbies, and it has multiple Kens. But when it comes to actors who look like a Barbie doll, Robbie is the first person I would have thought of then, and after seeing this movie, my thoughts have not changed.
But there is more to a movie than what is in front of the camera, what REALLY got me excited, happens to be some of the people working behind the scenes. This film is directed by Greta Gerwig, who also helmed the incredible “Lady Bird,” a near-perfect coming of age flick. She also directed the 2019 adaptation of “Little Women,” which despite some solid filmmaking, only barely captivated me as a viewer. Despite a decent screenplay, I found the movie to be poorly paced. It was not my cup of tea. But my thoughts do not change the fact that Gerwig stands as one of Hollywood’s most prominent filmmakers today, and I was excited to see her not only direct, but also write “Barbie.” Alongside her is her partner, Noah Baumbach, a talented mind on his own. He wrote and directed “Marriage Story,” which broke me by the end of it. Naturally, the writers for this film were a dream team. Once I heard about all of this, I had gone from being less than excited, to outright looking forward to what this film could deliver.
That said, did it deliver?
I would say it did. Unfortunately though, depending on how you slice it, I do not think it is one of the year’s best films.
Now do not get me wrong, I said I enjoyed the film. Very much in fact. But I have my problems with it. I will address them right away. My biggest problem with the film is that the screenplay, as much as I admired the ideas behind it, occasionally spends too much time over embellishing certain things. Movies are at their core, visual. And honestly, “Barbie” has a screenplay that is quite good, but honestly makes me wonder if it would have been better had it been made into say a book. The movie is narrated by Helen Mirren, who does a good job with the narration given to her, but I feel like every time I hear the narration or see particular scenes play out, I wonder if it would have been more fun to read than watch. A major rule of filmmaking is to show, not tell. The movie looks dazzling and the dialogue is great for the most part, but I will not deny that when it comes to the film’s morals and lessons, they feel more as if they are told than shown sometimes. And I am not saying the movie is as some people would call certain things for some reason, “woke.” I think the movie has a positive message behind it, especially for women. Honestly, when it comes to women empowerment, it is handled much better here than it was in say the 2016 “Ghostbusters,” which continues to stand as one of the worst blockbusters I have ever seen.
Although on that topic, the movie may appear to present itself as a pro-feminist narrative, and in a way, it is. That is not a bad thing, that idea is handled decently throughout the film. But in reality, if anything, I think the film is a cautionary tale for anyone, no matter their gender or identity, to avoid taking too much power for themselves. Because while it may appear great for that side, there will always be someone else that potentially gets hurt. The way this movie handles its down with the patriarchy angle is one that more or less comes off as women asking those in power, “How would you like it if we did this sort of thing to you?” “Barbie” is a movie that prominently features multiple extremes and shows the problem with each one. The way the movie goes about doing so is brilliantly executed.
Despite its flaws, “Barbie” is a smart, funny, colorful film. It is nowhere near my pick to win Best Picture this year, but it is quite entertaining. Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach have crafted a number of excellent lines, a couple of which have already become meme-worthy. I have heard many people who saw the film before me say that “Barbie” is not going to be the kind of film one would imagine it to be. I knew that from the beginning. But even I was a little surprised as to where this movie ended up going. The film is undoubtedly creative and fleshes out not just its lead character, but also does a great job with supporting roles such as Ryan Gosling’s Ken.
Speaking of excellent casting, I am going to say the same thing I said about Margot Robbie. When it comes to the idea of who should a play a Ken doll, Ryan Gosling, I am not joking, was most likely the first actor that would have popped in my head several years ago. And despite this film being an expensive blockbuster, he does not phone it in. From what I have seen, I could tell Gosling not only embraced the role of Ken on set, but he looked like he was having a lot of fun with the role. After seeing this movie, I cannot imagine anyone else playing his character. I never thought I would say this, Ryan Gosling deserves an Oscar nomination for his efforts here. He knocks this role out of the park. He completely transforms himself here and it is glorious to see.
Not only does Ryan Gosling give, and I still cannot believe I am saying this, an Academy Award-level performance, I would have to say his song, “I’m Just Ken,” which has been all the rage for the past month, is a bop. Again, the Oscars are not until next year, but if they were tomorrow, Gosling’s performances as both an actor and a singer would be worth considering for the win.
The screen does not just lend itself to these actors giving their all. It also allows for some superb costumes, ferociously neat use of the color pink, and some utterly pristine production design. This film looks like a large toy set come to life. At times, it looks like something out of a dream. I will also say the segments set in our world do not look half bad either, but I will not deny that almost anything you will see on Barbieland qualifies for maybe my favorite set design of 2023. A lot of work definitely went into making these sets and the results are pleasing to the eye.
Much like “Oppenheimer,” which I saw before “Barbie” for those curious as to how I handled my Barbenheimer game plan, “Barbie” has a memorable final scene, particularly because of how they handle the dialogue. To give away the last line of the movie would mean I have to dive into spoilers for the two people who have yet to see it, but all I will say that the line stands amongst the funniest I have heard this year.
If I have any other complaints in the movie, it would be that Will Ferrell, despite his best efforts, came off as one of the weaker parts of the movie’s large ensemble. Will Ferrell is funny, and I have seen him be funny. But his shtick usually works in other stuff. He has one or two decent moments as the CEO of Mattel, though it is not enough to call him a highlight.
The rest of the cast however, for the most part, is perfect. If you told me a few months ago the SAG Awards would nominate the cast of “Barbie” for a Best Ensemble award, I would have appreciated the names on the list, but I would have asked if an acorn fell on your head. If you told me that today, I would buy your claim. The ensemble of “Barbie” gives it their all. I do not know if they will end up being the best cast of the year, but they are a contender, alongside “Oppenheimer,” to be the best cast of the summer. While this movie may not be my favorite this summer, I do not regret seeing it. I had a good time with it. It might be a one time watch for me, but the one time was a pleasant viewing experience.
In the end, “Barbie” is exactly what the marketing said it would be. The movie is for people who love “Barbie” as much as the people who hate it. I was never the target demographic for this movie, but that does not mean I did not have a great time with it. Margot Robbie kills it in the lead role. Ryan Gosling gives one of the best supporting performances I have seen all year. America Ferrera was also quite good. Simu Liu is another standout. I was looking forward to “Barbie,” but even I was delightfully surprised by how it was executed. This is not Greta Gerwig’s best work, but it is still a polished, well shot, well made film that was worth seeing. I am going to give “Barbie” a 7/10.
“Barbie” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! Also stay tuned for my reviews for “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem,” “Talk to Me,” “Blue Beetle,” “Strays,” and “Gran Turismo.” That’s undeniably a lot of movies, and I will have my thoughts on them soon! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Barbie?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a toy that you would like to see adapted the big screen? If Mattel wants to take this business further, I would love to see what they could do with “Hot Wheels.” Seeing customized cars come to life would be rather magnificent if you asked me. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Flash” is directed by Andy Muschietti (It, Mama) and stars Ezra Miller (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, The Perks of Being a Wallflower), Sasha Calle (The Young and the Restless, Socially Awkward), Michael Shannon (Nine Perfect Strangers, Mud), Ron Livingston (Office Space, Band of Brothers), Maribel Verdú (Pan’s Labyrinth, Tetro), Kiersey Clemons (Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, Dope), Antje Traue (Seventh Son, Criminal), and Michael Keaton (Spider-Man: Homecoming, Spotlight). The film is about Barry Allen, otherwise known as the Flash, a speedster whose desire to change the past ruins the present. With the help of Supergirl and an alternate Batman, Allen must fight to save the future.
It is finally here! “The Flash…” The movie with a speedy character but a snail-like development. What took this movie so long? Well, a buttload of happenstances to make a long story short. Directors leaving, delays, COVID-19, Warner Bros. changing hands a couple times, and of course, the curse of Ezra Miller. An individual whose plethora of crimes and accusations include grooming, assault, harassment, among other things. At the end of the day though, Miller only a small part of this movie. “The Flash” is ultimately the product of Warner Bros. and Andy Muschietti. This film is not the first time these two have collaborated, as Muschietti directed the incredible 2017 horror flick “It,” based on the Stephen King novel. He also returned to direct “It: Chapter Two,” which is a step down, but still a halfway decent follow-up. My problems with those films had little to do with Muschietti’s direction. The films look, sound, and present themselves fantastically. Each cast member, including those on the younger side, do a great job in those films. Therefore, I was intrigued to know Muschietti was at the helm for this “Flash” project.
But FLASH forward to the time this film comes out… If we look at the current state of the DCEU, its track record has been mixed as of late. To be frank, I adore James Gunn’s “The Suicide Squad,” and continue to think it is the best DC movie to date. My dad and I quote King Shark almost every other week. “Black Adam,” while kind of disappointing given how much hype there was going into it, had its moments. Despite being a massive box office failure, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods” is honestly a really entertaining movie. Granted, it is unbelievably cliché at times and features one of the worst instances of product placement I have ever seen, but I recommend the film despite these negatives. Though speaking of James Gunn, he is now one of the two heads of DC Studios, which is going to reboot the DC characters entirely later this decade. Due to his position of power, he got to see “The Flash” early, and claimed it is “probably one of the greatest superhero movies ever made.” From the guy who did the “Guardians of the Galaxy” films, in addition to, again, literally my favorite DC film, this says something. Gunn comes off as not only a solid filmmaker, but an enthusiast of the comic book source material in addition to the sub-genre inspired by it. Though of course, he works for Warner Bros. and DC, therefore he cannot say the film sucks, otherwise he would face serious consequences.
Having seen “The Flash,” I do not concur with James Gunn’s statement. I think “The Flash” is far from being the best superhero movie ever, not to mention far from being the best DC movie ever. This film does not meet the quality of other titles like “The Dark Knight,” “Wonder Woman,” or, not to beat a dead horse, James Gunn’s own cinematic masterpiece “The Suicide Squad.” Though if I have to be honest, “The Flash” is not a bad movie. I had a really good time with it. Having said that, I have come across some people who beg to differ, and one of the issues they often bring up are the special effects. I am not going to pretend all of the effects in “The Flash” work, but if I have to be frank, a lot of them do, it is just a select few obvious green screen shots and… (sigh) FLASHY moments that get in the way.
There is also a segment featuring obviously unreal babies. The moment I looked at those babies, my eyes almost darted away from the screen, but at the same time, I give “The Flash” credit for not putting real babies in danger. In fact there is one part of this specific scene where if they did use real babies, there is a good chance that would raise some controversy because one of them, courtesy of Barry Allen’s actions, ends up in a microwave. Thankfully, the microwave is not timing itself out, but it does not change the fact that Barry put a baby in a microwave. The specific scene has some haunting frames. But if I have to be honest, it was actually a solid scene because once we get to the digital baby highlight reel, it puts Barry in a terrible scenario. Because not only does Barry have to save a surplus of babies at once, he must also acquire a therapy dog. This movie puts the two most prominent creatures people want to protect in danger at once. Human babies and dogs. “The Flash” knows what it is doing. When it comes to handling the protagonist, I like how the film goes about it. That is also evidenced by the heart of the film, Barry’s connection with his deceased mother.
Like many superpowered individuals, Barry’s guardian, specifically his mom, died during his youth. Therefore it should not be a surprise that Barry Allen’s ultimate desire in “The Flash” is to see his mom again. I thought this was a well executed thread that tied everything together. This desire propels Barry to do everything he does throughout the film. While this is a cliché of the hero’s journey structure, this film handles it perfectly. There are a couple scenes featuring Barry’s mother and they continue to stick with me. There is one scene featuring her in particular that serves as a competitor to be my favorite part of the movie. Because while this movie is, as the title of this review suggests, a spectacle, it puts the emotions of the characters first. Well, for the most part. I think when we get to the more spectacular moments, one problem I have with them is that the huge scale action sometimes takes away from said emotion. This is especially noticeable during the climax. There is a moment where a couple characters keep doing something that could present itself as one of high stakes, but as I watch it, I cannot help but feel like the stakes lessen each time. As cool as time travel is, this movie presents a stakes-related flaw in these kinds of stories.
Although speaking of time and reality, this movie continues the multiverse trend that has been a part of many titles as of late. In fact, around 2021 to 2022, I often joked that “The Flash” might as well be called “Batman: No Way Home” because much like “Spider-Man: No Way Home” does with its titular hero, multiple Batmen from alternate cinematic timelines appear in this film. “The Flash” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” are not even remotely close to being the same kind of movie. Though they have quite a few commonalities in addition to the multiverse aspect. Both have protagonists who at one point have to carry on despite the loss of their guardian consuming them. These protagonists also end up screwing their own timelines, therefore allowing the rest of the story to happen. Not to mention, there is plenty of nostalgia and fan service throughout.
In fact, I was kind of expecting fan service given the nature of “The Flash” and the fact that both Ben Affleck and Michael Keaton appear in the film as their respective Batman characters. Although I was not prepared for some of what this movie had to offer. In fact, going back to “No Way Home,” while I think “No Way Home” has overall more satisfying and better fan service, there is a shock value attached to some of the fan service in “The Flash.” If you stay off the Internet and avoid looking at certain pieces of merchandise, you might be totally surprised by some of the things that happen in this film. There is one moment I heard about going in that I was pleased to see for more reasons than one. But there was one moment in the last scene that made me shout “Oh my god!” out loud in the theater. I was caught totally off guard. In fact, during the moment this scene played, the movie ended, and it made me want more. And I am somewhat disappointed to say that we will probably never get more because the DCEU is coming to an end. The more I think about it post-viewing, this scene could also come off as a joke as much as a shocking story development, but if the DCEU was to continue and this was not a joke, I would love to see where things go next. Given the context of the scene and what it references, it seems weird to say, but I am not kidding. Yet the more I think about it, maybe I would not want to see where things go because I think Ezra Miller needs to focus on things that may be more important to them at this time than acting.
Although if there is one moment of fan service that I did not like, it would be a callback to one of Michael Keaton’s iconic lines. It comes at the end of a particular scene where the heroes get set to move onto the next part of their journey. Specifically, Keaton’s Bruce Wayne utters, “You wanna get nuts? Let’s get nuts.” While I get the context of the line, it feels forced and out of place in the scene. The scene would have already been perfect had he said nothing, but he pops in at the last minute just to check in with the audience and test their memory. It does not add anything to the scene, the plot, or the movie. It is just there for the sake of being there. I know nostalgia can be appealing, but there are moments where it makes sense and others where it does not. This is a case of the latter.
Much like the preceding DCEU entry, “Shazam!: Fury of the Gods,” “The Flash” has incredible pacing. There is not a single moment of this movie where I wanted to drift off to sleep. There is a lot to like within the 2 hour and 24 minute runtime. This movie is a minute longer than “Aquaman” and yet it feels shorter. Maybe it is because there is a notable use of slow motion at times, perhaps that is a culprit, but it does not change the fact that “The Flash” wizzes by and never wastes a second. I was entertained through each act and wanted to know how things unfolded as they went along.
To be honest, this is why I liked this movie. Because while I acknowledge some people can be turned off by the visual effects, I do not think bad visual effects can always get in the way of a good story. For the most part, “The Flash” is a solid story with a likable protagonist. Barry’s relationship with his carbon copy is off and on for me, but there are moments where it works. Although speaking of effects, even though there are two Barrys on screen, their movements compared to one another, felt seamless. Not once did I look at this duo, who are in quite a bit of the movie, and feel distracted or taken out. Again, there are some distracting visuals in “The Flash,” but the two Barrys are an example of some great visual effects in this movie.
If you have not read Scene Before in the past, you may be shocked to hear that I would probably rather watch “The Flash” over the most recent “Avatar” film. Yes, “Avatar: The Way of Water” looks pretty. But the characters range from disposable to forgettable to overly cartoony. The story is also fairly lackluster. Seeing Barry Allen’s journey is honestly more palatable than that of the Sully family. I found myself intrigued with his development as a character, in addition to hanging out with some of the film’s supporting cast. There are better visual effects in the DCEU, though if I have to also be honest, I think the visuals in “The Flash” might even be superior to a recent MCU flick, specifically “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.” While definitely stylized, I found myself immersed in the world of “The Flash,” whereas I did not believe what my eyes saw in “Quantumania.” Sure, that movie looks nice at times and there are moments where the effects do pop, but portions of it feel artificial.
Oh, and there is also the revolting eyesore that some people refer to as M.O.D.O.K….
Let me make something clear. If you are skipping out on “The Flash” because Ezra Miller did the things they did, I understand. That said, the movie itself is a blast to watch. The journey of Barry Allen makes the film as joyous as it is. If you take out some of the fan service and the fact that there are two preexisting Batman characters in the film, I still think the narrative is quite good. This is by no means the next “Spider-Man 2” but I had a nice time watching this film.
In the end, “The Flash” is not the best comic book movie of the year, nor is it even the best multiverse-based movie of the year. Both of those honors frankly belong to “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.” But like “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” I walked out of “The Flash” with the notion that I had a good time. It has its flaws, and I am not afraid to point them out. But all of the actors do a great job with their individual characters. There are quite a few fun scenes. For me, the fan service landed most of the time. How it will land with you may depend on your knowledge of comic book movies. But that is probably going to vary from viewer to viewer. When it comes to pure entertainment value, this is a movie I do not regret seeing. Maybe I will watch it again at some point. I would put this in the same boat as I did with the recent “Transformers” film. Not a fantastic movie overall, but as far as imperfect movies go, it is quite enjoyable. I am going to give “The Flash” an extremely high 6/10. So high in fact, part of me would consider changing it to a 7/10 at some point.
“The Flash” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new sex comedy “No Hard Feelings.” Other reviews coming up include “Elemental,” “Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” and “Joy Ride.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Flash?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with bad effects that you tend to enjoy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 