Month: October 2023

Blade Runner (1982): Gimmie a Hard Copy Right There

Posted on by Jack Drees

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!

Dumb Money (2023): A True Story Rich in Humor and Stars

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dumb Money” is directed by Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya, Cruella) and stars Paul Dano (The Batman, The Fabelmans), Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Vincent D’Onofrio (Daredevil, Full Metal Jacket), America Ferrera (Barbie, How to Train Your Dragon), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Sebastian Stan (Captain America: The First Avenger, I, Tonya), Shailene Woodley (Divergent, Big Little Lies), and Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party). This film is inspired by Ben Mezrich’s “The Antisocial Network,” a book based on true events. The story of “Dumb Money” captures ordinary people subverting the expectations of Wall Street and turning GameStop into the hottest company on the stock market.

I never got involved in the stock market in any capacity throughout my life. It is just something I have never gotten around to. But even as someone who has never gotten involved, there were times in 2021 where I could not scroll through social media without seeing something related to GameStop, or heck, even AMC Theatres. Both companies were the talks of the town at the time because a ton of people kept buying their stock, and on the surface, it felt like an ongoing joke, but for some people, it was more than that. This is a fascinating story. Therefore, I was surprised, but also delighted, that people were making a movie of this caliber on it as soon as they were. On the surface, the cast is fantastic. Many of them either had recent roles that were highlights of their respective works or have maintained careers that have kept my attention for a long time.

When I think of the GameStop stock story, part of me wants to laugh about it. I mean, come on! It is a physical media company that is as much the butt of the joke as it is synonymous with its own industry. If you live in an area where used game stores are a rarity, chances are you will, even with recent closures, have a GameStop or two within close distance. I am a GameStop customer and shop there multiple times a year. I don’t think all their business practices are great, but they usually provide a decent experience if you are looking for something in particular. In fact, I almost ended up working for GameStop in my teens. Having seen this film, I realize that as much as it highlights the people who are investing in GameStop, it is not afraid to joke about some of the things the company has done. Additionally, “Dumb Money” seems to satirize retail environments in general. I previously worked in retail. Not at GameStop, but still. And this kind of took me back in a way. One of my favorite segments of the movie is this bond between a GameStop employee and their boss. Each scene between them got a laugh out of me. This movie highlights, as I previously knew, the fact that GameStop remained open during the pandemic as an essential business. Sure, it sold certain technologies that people often used during the pandemic, but it is far from the most essential of businesses.

My favorite dig this movie does towards the large gaming chain is when they reference the idea of employees doing a TikTok dance challenge as part of a company contest. This is true by the way. The moment I heard that joke, I was in shock, and then in amazement. Because I nearly forgot that happened. Or more specifically, that it almost did. For those who don’t know, GameStop proposed a challenge to its employees to dance to a song on TikTok in the hopes of achieving extra hours on Black Friday week. This is the thing I love about “Dumb Money,” it is a film that balances humor and respect towards its subject matter. But at the end of the day, it is also a film that tells marvelous tales of underdogs.

There are several underdogs in this movie, and their stories are all compelling. In fact, one of those underdogs is a GameStop employee played by Anthony Ramos. If I did not suggest it already, I enjoyed his presence in the film and his character was well written. Meanwhile you have a couple college students trying to strike it rich. Both of whom are wonderfully played by Myha’la Herrold and Talia Ryder. On another side of the spectrum is a struggling nurse named Jenny, played by America Ferrera, whose presence oozed of charisma every moment she was on screen. But at the center of it all is Keith Gill, who spends his off time from his job on the Internet talking about stocks and Wall Street. The working man and family background of this character made him a compelling protagonist, in addition to Paul Dano’s acting method.

I like all the characters in “Dumb Money,” and I must say the antagonists of the film, specifically those more connected with Wall Street such as Seth Rogen’s Gabe Plotkin, are also fun to watch. At times, this movie basically spitballs who to root for, which is not a hard thing for me to do considering the personality traits and backbones of the antagonists. But there is one scene that perhaps over-embellishes the necessity to root against Gabe. This movie is set during the early-ish days of the COVID-19 pandemic. And one of the earliest things we learn about Gabe is that he and his family now own a new place in Florida so they could party hard during the pandemic. I was, and still am to a degree, one of those people who takes the recent events of the pandemic seriously. I am not perfect, but I still keep everything about it in the back my mind. I remember when the pandemic first started, my family and I had to balance our finances because of the way the economy flipped on its head. And I was primarily concerned about getting my grandparents sick. Meanwhile, this guy is more concerned about being able to party like an animal. The difference here is obvious.

“Dumb Money” is one of those stories that highlights the divide between classes. You have Wall Street up at the top and people like Keith Gill, who is not poor, but making chump change in comparison. It shows how even people at the top feel like they might not have enough despite their enormous success. Meanwhile, this GameStop story, whether it will be remembered more as a triumph for people outside Wall Street or as a silly meme that caught a lot of people’s attention, shows that there may be room for regular people when it comes to striking it big on the stock market. This is a story set in recent times that often delivers humor highlighting said times. I am wondering how well this movie is going to age as a comedy because some of its humor is COVID-driven, but there are plenty of other jokes emitting a more timeless feel to balance it out. “Dumb Money” is very funny, entertaining, and brings out a heck of a story. Before this movie, I looked at the GameStop stock trend as a silly fad, but this movie presents it as something more. And that’s probably the best thing about it. It added depth to this subject for me that I was not expecting. A job well done is in order to everyone involved with this movie.

In the end, “Dumb Money” is rich in excellence. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but when it comes to comedy, this movie has a ton of laughs, and as a drama, it is way more compelling than it needs to be. It presents all these individual stories from different walks of life and makes one big, masterful connection out of all of them. “Dumb Money” is neither short on stars or chuckles. Go check it out if you get a chance. I am going to give “Dumb Money” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned because I have reviews coming for “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon!” But in addition to those reviews, I have my last review of the Ridley Scottober series dropping this week. If you want to read my reviews in the series so far, you can check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World.” As for this last review coming up, I must claim it is a big one. I am talking about “Blade Runner!” Make sure you check out these reviews, past and future, when you get a chance! And you can do so by following Scene Before either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dumb Money?” What did you think about it? Or, do you shop at GameStop? If not, what is your gaming store of choice? Do you even play video games? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

All the Money in the World (2017): Ridley Scott’s Mildly Thrilling Work Featuring Captivating (Non Kevin-Spacey) Performances

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Welcome to the third installment of the Ridley Scottober review series! It is a series where I will be talking about four Ridley Scott-directed films throughout the month of October. If you are interested in my first two reviews of the series, feel free to check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies” and “Gladiator.” The movie I am talking about today shares something in common with the last two I talked about. The fact that I have never seen it until now. That film in particular is “All the Money in the World,” whose name I have ton when it came out for a number of reasons. Now that I have finally gotten a chance to see what everyone is talking about, it is time to share my review.

“All the Money in the World” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Martian) and stars Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn, Manchester by the Sea), Christopher Plummer (Up, Beginners), Mark Wahlberg (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Patriots Day), and Romain Duris (L’Auberge Espagnole, The Beat That My Heart Skipped). This film is based on the events surrounding the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III, whose grandfather is the world’s richest private citizen, J. Paul Getty Sr.. When the kidnappee’s mother is unable to hand over $17 million for her son’s freedom, she does what she can to convince Getty Sr. to provide the money.

When it comes to Ridley Scott, he is usually a name that would get me in the theater. If he were sitting in the director’s chair, there is a good chance I am there. Granted that is not always true as I did not have a ton of interest in “House of Gucci” when it came out, but nevertheless. One of the reasons why I am very much looking forward to his next film, “Napoleon,” is because he is helming it. But when it comes to “All the Money in the World,” there is a particular name that was on my mind, even years after this film came out. But maybe not for the reasons the people behind this movie would desire. That name, is Kevin Spacey.

Ah… Kevin Spacey. How the mighty have fallen. A couple wrong moves in life and here you are. Your relevance is about as tiny as bacteria. Now this review is being done as part of a Ridley Scott series, and I will not deny that I was partially intrigued by this film because Scott’s name was attached to it. But if I were in the general audience months before this film’s release, there is a solid chance that Kevin Spacey would have gotten me in the door. I thought he was good actor with a decent resume. In fact, he just did “Baby Driver” earlier in the year, an incredible action flick with pristinely executed sequences and a killer soundtrack. Before this movie came out, all of his footage was shot, and he was going to play J. Paul Getty Sr.. Sounds interesting, right?

Well, fast forward to October 2017. News comes out reporting Kevin Spacey’s sexual misconduct allegations, and therefore “All the Money in the World” is in a world of hurt. Kevin Spacey was supposed to be a centerpiece of the film’s campaign, especially considering the arrival of awards season. AFI Fest was around the corner, and the movie was supposed to premiere there. That premiere was canceled, and everyone went back to work on the film. Kevin Spacey was recast with Christopher Plummer, and they shot his scenes over the course of nine days. I think this whole behind the scenes aspect is the highlight of the film. I am a production junkie. I work in production so I may be biased. But I know a thing or two about how hard it is to do something last minute, but if done right, the results can present themselves as fantastic.

Now if you pay close attention to the movie, and I did not know this upon my watch, there is one shot in the film that features Kevin Spacey getting off a train. The reason for that is because it would have been too expensive to redo. All the rest are of Christopher Plummer. I was amazed at this movie’s quick turnaround, even if the people behind it admit they could not achieve perfection.

I do not know what Kevin Spacey’s performance was like in this film, and frankly I do not care. What we got from everyone onboard was great. The recently mentioned Christopher Plummer, Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, and Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher) all knocked their portrayals out of the park. All of them bring something exciting to the table with their characters and I cannot see anyone else, including Kevin Spacey, playing them. One of the reasons why Ridley Scott himself is a solid director is because he always manages to bring the best out of his talent. My favorite performance of 2015, and I sincerely apologize to the great Academy Award-winning Leonardo DiCaprio of “The Revenant” when I say this, is Matt Damon as Mark Watney in “The Martian.” Damon not only highlighted a constant survival instinct within his character from scene one, but did so with a sense of humor that I could only describe as irreplaceable. “All the Money in the World” clearly delivers different vibes, it is more dramatic, more serious, and LITERALLY more down to earth. “All the Money in the World” does a superb job at putting me into a world where we have all these people who would be hard to relate to 100% of the time, and yet I could sit in a room with them as a fly on the wall, intrigued by their actions.

But just because I am jumping up and down about the acting in “All the Money in the World,” does not mean it captivated me from beginning to end. There are moments of the movie that are more thrilling than others. There are moments where I had to struggle to pay attention. And there are also moments where I almost tuned out entirely. The movie is not bad, but much like “Body of Lies,” there is a certain spice that I wanted out this film that I could not quite achieve. It feels like I am going back to my watch of another thriller of his, “Body of Lies.” I think “All the Money in the World” is a better film with a more compelling story, fewer cliches up the wazoo, and more interesting characters. But if there is one thing both films have in common, there are select scenes in the film that had that had a greater span of my attention than others.

If there is another thing to note about “All the Money in the World,” it looks beautiful. The production designer for “All the Money in the World” is Arthur Max, who has worked a ton with Scott in the past on films like “Gladiator,” “Black Hawk Down,” and even as recent as “The Martian.” The two go hand in hand. Speaking of Scott’s usual suspects, the cinematography is done by Dariusz Wolski. He previously worked on “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “The Martian,” and even “Alien: Covenant” which released months before this movie hit theaters. The lighting and framing make for a consistently perfect pair throughout “All the Money in the World.” There is a wide shot in Rome from the first few minutes that I wanted as a desktop photo. It is that good.

As a story, despite the film’s pacing issues, some characters standing out more than others, and select scenes not having as much of a pop as I would prefer, I am glad we got to see it. I think the movie presents a fascinating moral about wealth, and how even when you are rich, you feel that there is no breaking point. There are probably more people out there than we think that will put their riches before their family. I will not deny that having money is nice. And I am not going to pretend that I have as much as Christopher Plummer’s character. I found it fascinating, and kind of depressing, how his character seemed to think saving someone in his family was not worth even just a small portion of his wealth. J. Paul Getty Sr. stands out way more than he should as a character given all the controversy surrounding this film, but I guarantee that regardless of who is playing him, he is probably the character that would stand out most in the story, for good reason. But of course, at the risk of beating a dead horse, Christopher Plummer does an excellent job in the role.

In the end, “All the Money in the World” is not my favorite of Scott’s works. But much like “Body of Lies,” it stands as a film that I think a lot of people would kill to make. But if I have to be real with you, I think the history of this movie is more interesting than the movie itself. If it were not for all the controversy, this would just be a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library. But with the way things are, it is a lesser film in Ridley Scott’s library with notable complications that came up around its release. It is not something I plan on watching a second time, but it is a film that I do not regret putting on. The performances are all standouts, the camerawork is some of the finest of its year, and when it comes down to it, it is an intriguing study of how wealth can affect people. Yes, at times it is a chore to watch, I will not deny that. But I think you would not be doing yourself any harm if you decide to check it out. I am going to give “All the Money in the World” a very high and generous 6/10.

“All the Money in the World” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on various streaming services.

Thanks for reading this review! My final Ridley Scottober review arrives next week, and unlike the ones I have done so far, it is for a film I have seen.

Many times, actually.

For the final Ridley Scottober review, I am going to be talking about “Blade Runner,” the 1982 science fiction classic! It is a film that I have mentioned and talked about many times on Scene Before, but after many years of blogging here, I finally get to do a proper review of it. Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “All the Money in the World?” What did you think about it? Or, if you could replace any actor or actress in any movie in the history of time with Christopher Plummer, which one would it be and why? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “The Creator,” you might want to know that I have reviews coming up for “Dumb Money” and “It Lives Inside.” Stay tuned! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Creator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Gareth Edwards’s films he has done thus far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Gladiator (2000): A Colossal Epic of Roman Glory

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy to have you all tune into this latest film review as we continue Ridley Scottober! A month-long event where I talk about four Ridley Scott-directed films, all for your reading pleasure. This is the second entry to the series, and it is an exciting one. “Gladiator.” I assure you, I was looking forward to watching this movie, and now I equally look forward to talking about it. And if you want to check out the first entry of Ridley Scottober, feel free to read my review for “Body of Lies.” But if you plan to stick around, please enjoy my thoughts on Ridley Scott’s 2000 Academy Award Best Picture winner.

“Gladiator” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Russell Crowe (The Insider, L.A. Confidential), Joaquin Phoenix (Clay Pigeons, 8MM), Connie Nielsen (The Devil’s Advocate, Rushmore), Oliver Reed (The Three Musketeers, Oliver!), Derek Jacobi (Hamlet, Dead Again), Djimon Hounsou (Deep Rising, Amistad), and Richard Harris (Unforgiven, Patriot Games). This film is set during the glory of Rome, and centers around General Maximumus Decimus Meridius, a general who becomes a slave who intends to seek revenge against those who brought him there in addition to killing his family.

I have a soft spot for Russell Crowe, but part of me does not know if I can legally say that, as I have not watched “Gladiator” until this review. Why? It is for the same reason I mentioned for “Body of Lies” in that review. I bought the Blu-ray years ago. In fact, I bought “Gladiator” almost a year before “Body of Lies,” but I just never got around to it until now. I had no vendetta against either of these movies, but one of the complications of being a movie collector is being able to sit down and watch the new films I buy because I have so many and sometimes want to revisit some favorite titles. One of the silver linings of this series and other review marathons I have done in the past like the “Mortal Kombat” films and some of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies like “At World’s End,” is that it helps me get around to titles that I have never seen before. In fact, “Gladiator” is one of those movies, much more so than “Body of Lies,” that when you bring up the fact of never seeing it, there is a chance someone will ask if you are a real movie fan.

I am a real movie fan. In fact those of you reading this questioning my moves for years should be jealous, because I am getting experience this film for the first time. Some may call it being late to the party, I call it a long-awaited ounce of excitement.

About 23 years after its release, “Gladiator” is still in many conversations as a master class film. It is #36 on the IMDb top 250. The film won five Oscars, including Best Picture. Over in Britain, it snatched four BAFTAs, including Best Film. There is plenty of proof to show how much the film has stood as a testament to the industry and the sword-and-sandal genre. But these are just the opinions of other people. There is only one opinion that matters here, and that is the one of the Movie Reviewing Moron. So, what did I think of “Gladiator?”

Sorry in advance… I am “glad” I saw it.

“Gladiator” goes to show the power of first impressions, because from the beginning, the film completely immersed me. The film has a story that showcases the glory of Rome, and the film itself carries a similar glory unto its own. There is so much going on inside the screen that it is insane. Between the humungous cast, with who knows how many extras, the beautiful showcasing of wides, and the magnificent on location sets, “Gladiator” is pleasing to the naked eye. I understand that at the time, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was kind of a big achievement in visual effects in terms of how deep they go with certain concepts, how real certain things looked for the time, but if I had to look back on both of these films now, I think “Gladiator” is the clear winner in terms of which is more attractive to the eye. I look back at “The Phantom Menace” and it sometimes looks like a video game. There have been worse looking effects, but still.

In fact, speaking of effects, there was one fight in particular that involves the use of tigers. It is easy to say because I am not the one making the film, but I kind of appreciated the film’s tendency to use real tigers. Now, I did question if the tigers were CGIed, which they partly were. They used bluescreen to make the tiger appear closer to the characters. That said, I admire how making “Gladiator” was probably about as dangerous as being a gladiator. I would have completely understood if this movie went down the full CGI route for the tigers, but the fact that they decided not to is a risk that paid off.

What also carries “Gladiator” are the performance. This is most notable with Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, an admirable protagonist. On the other hand, we have Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, an equally admirable antagonist. These two deliver two completely different vibes and mannerisms into their individual performances, but it does not change the fact that their work in this film are goldmines. Both of their deliveries are incredibly convincing. Even just their physicality, just having them stand around had me staring in awe.

But this film is much more than big fights and larger than life sets because I found myself immersed in the drama between the characters. Obviously there is the main story of Maximus trying to get his revenge, but in addition to that, I also found the family drama on Commodus’s side to quite compelling. Between how he gets his power, his relationship with his nephew, I found all of it intriguing. The film does a really good job at balancing various family, political, and personal dramas.

I will admit, having watched the film, there are parts of it that drag a little. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but in the scenes where people are talking, it is not necessarily that engaging. For the record, I can handle talking, I have no problem. But the scenes where people talk in this film are not as compelling as others, but there are select moments that positively stand out.

In fact, “Gladiator” as a film sort of reminds me, story-wise, of “Braveheart,” as it follows a someone trying to obtain their freedom, not to mention the freedom of others, within a backdrop of large sets and incredible violence. But much like “Braveheart,” as I watched the film, specifically the first 40, 45 minutes, I found myself getting bored and needing to pause the film to take a breather. For the record, I would contend that every minute of “Braveheart” is essential to the film. Much like how every minute of “Gladiator” is essential to it. But I would not deny that both films have pacing issues. Only difference, once I get past the first 45 minutes of “Braveheart,” the movie throttles heavily and gets good fast. “Gladiator” is very off and on with the pacing, but even in the slower moments, I still found myself the tiniest bit engaged. That said, having finished this film, this is one of those movies that if it were playing in a theater near me or if it got the IMAX treatment, I would go check it out. It looks like a magnificent theatrical experience. The cinematography is beautiful. The sets, again, are stunning. The sound editing and mixing are beyond powerful. Maybe if I watch this film in a theater, where I am less likely to be distracted, I would feel different than I do here. That said, the film is worth watching regardless and you absolutely should check it out if given the chance.

In the end, I get the hype for “Gladiator.” I had a good time with it. It is not my favorite of Ridley Scott’s films, and it is not even my favorite film of the early 2000s with huge sets and epic on location action. Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy started a year later. That said, it is one that if you asked me if I would watch it again, the answer would be an instant “yes.” I would probably put it on again at home, or again, if there were a chance to watch it in theaters, I would give it a chance. The cast is fantastic, the story is fascinating, and I must add that Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard’s score is mighty fine. I am going to give “Gladiator” an 8/10.

“Gladiator” is now available on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available on streaming and is free on Netflix for all subscribers as of this writing.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Gladiator” and want more Ridley Scott in your life, I have two more reviews coming in the Ridley Scottober series! One next week, followed by another the week after. Stay tuned. Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Last Duel,” Scott’s epic drama from 2021. 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 “Gladiator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sword and sandal movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Body of Lies (2008): A Pinch of Intrigue Mixed with a Hint of Blandness

Posted on by Jack Drees

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!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

Unfortunately, not great.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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