Month: October 2024

Saturday Night (2024): Some of the Most Stressfully Exciting 90 Minutes in Cinematic History

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Saturday Night” is directed by Jason Reitman (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Juno) and stars Gabriel LaBelle (Snack Shack, The Fabelmans), Rachel Sennott (Bottoms, Bodies Bodies Bodies), Cory Michael Smith (Call Jane, 1985), Ella Hunt (Dickinson, Cold Feet), Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Maze Runner), Emily Fairn (Mary & George, The Responder), Matt Wood (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Difficult People), Lamorne Harris (Call Me Kat, New Girl), Kim Matula (LA to Vegas, The Bold and the Beautiful), Finn Wolfhard (It, Stranger Things), Nicolaus Braun (Zola, Succession), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza, Wildcat), Andrew Barth Feldman (No Hard Feelings, A Tourist’s Guide to Love), Kaia Gerber (Bottoms, American Horror Stories), Tommy Dewey (Casual, The Mindy Project), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Matthew Rhys (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, The Post), and JK Simmons (Spider-/Man, Whiplash). This film is a showcase of the chaotic 90 minutes leading up to the production of the first episode of “Saturday Night Live.”

People look at “Saturday Night Live” today with a mix of opinions. Of course, when a television series of its notability has been around for several decades, chances are that not everyone is going to have the same thoughts on it, and there may be moments some find to be better than others. I often find myself going back and watching the series’ gutbusting “Celebrity Jeopardy!” bits with Norm MacDonald as Burt Reynolds and Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery. Those sketches are comedy gold and I find myself quoting it on a regular basis. I have even used one of those bits as part of my Film Improvements segment during the 5th Jack Awards. But the movie “Saturday Night” dives into a time long before that when the show had its humble beginnings. The film has a star-studded cast including Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, and Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster just to name a few people. Audiences of all kinds know the names of these characters today, but this movie is kind of an underdog story about a bunch of nobodies. One of the most positive things I can say about “Saturday Night” is that it easily gets me to root for its cast to do anything and everything they can just to make it on the air by 11:30. The film definitely has a Hollywoodized feel to it at times, but I think it works because some of the hyped up situations definitely add to the entertainment of everything on screen.

For those who do not know, since 2023 I have worked in live television, particularly local news. So while I might say the film “Broadcast News” is sometimes more specifically reflective of my work environment, even though that movie came out years before I was born, “Saturday Night” also does a great job at encapsulating the vibe of working in a live production. This film dives into the first episode of “Saturday Night Live,” but I must say as someone who has been working in local news for almost a couple years now, even when the formula may be familiar, there have been times that feel as if we are making a live broadcast for the first time. After all, there is so much that has to be done for several shows in a single streak of hours. Therefore, something down the line is bound to screw itself up. It is unavoidable. Sometimes it is my fault. Sometimes it is someone else’s bad. Sometimes it is a technical problem. But one thing I will note about my job is that we are lucky that we have a schedule that is set in stone. Sure, not everything goes right, but there is a lot that does. We have a history of shows behind us, and planned broadcasts for the hours ahead. We have a good team of people who all do their job as best as they can and offer excellent results. But our crew in “Saturday Night” learns that they are potentially going to be sidelined by a rerun for “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.” They might not even have a first broadcast.

There are so many things that this crew has to deal with in just a span of 90 minutes… Making sure the entire cast is ready to go. Convincing John Belushi to tolerate being in costume. Figuring out what to cut for time. Standing outside the building and trying to get people to join a live studio audience. Trying to sell the show to various affiliates. This entire film is a stress streak from start to finish. It is anxiety-inducing. The movie contains a moment or two that allow the audience audience to breathe. There are slower moments in the movie, but even in those scenes there is a sense of everlasting tension. There is a wonder if certain wrongs will be made right.

I mentioned this film has a star-studded cast, so chances are you are going to recognize at least one name on the list. But my favorite performance in the film is from Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase. From the moment I witnessed this son of a gun fall to the floor, get back up, and so casually utter the words, “Sorry, tripped over my penis,” I knew we were in for something special. Even though he has a legacy, I have heard about some of the controversy surrounding Chase, such as when he was on “Community.” Having heard about that almost makes this movie, and this particular performance, just a tad funnier. Although that makes me wonder how this movie will sit with certain people, because it reminds me of how hyper-obsessively knowing about certain comic book movie news stories over the years made me appreciate “Deadpool & Wolverine” in a way that I imagine some people would not. It makes me question how well the movie will age.

Also, Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels is a superb pick. This is a young, fresh actor who I would guess not everybody knows at this point, and I think some people will still not know a few months later, but I hope this review helps a soul or two get to know him, because he is talented. Michaels is the center of this rollercoaster of a film, and you can tell that in every single frame, he is nervous about whatever crazy derailment could come up. And those nerves rubbed off on me. This is a young guy with a lot of potential. But the thing about potential is that not everyone has seen it. Even though this is based on events that happened and I had an idea of how things in this movie would go, I was rooting for Michaels and crew to unleash said potential by the end of the film.

I also want to bring up the ending of the film. It is one of those endings that had me perplexed, yet satisfied. Because it comes out of nowhere, but it also closes on a note where anything after it is practically bonus content. The main story finishes by the time we get to said ending, but it comes at me like a bullet. It feels jarring. Given time to marinate though, I love what they did with the ending. I will not go into detail for those wanting to see the movie, but between the timing of the dialogue and the credits music, I am having a hard time imagining this movie capping things off better than it did. On the note of the music though, Jon Batiste, who actually has some recent variety TV experience as the bandleader on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” for seven years, does the score for “Saturday Night,” and it is perfect. At times it is subtle, but it is almost a character of its own in the film. Just thinking about parts of it gives me chills and nerves.

One good question to ask is whether this movie is a good watch for people who for whatever reason, have not seen an episode or sketch from “Saturday Night Live.” I think this film will definitely land harder for those who have seen some of the sketches, some of the episodes. That is for sure. But I think those who have not seen “Saturday Night Live” can still get plenty of laughs out of this film. Because if you have not picked it up already, this is not “Saturday Night Live” in movie form. It is not like “Jackass” or “Impractical Jokers,” two shows starring real people that end up taking their show’s format and converting it into a feature film. This is not this generation’s version of “Movie 43” so to speak… This is instead a buildup into how “Saturday Night Live” became what it is. This is, again, an underdog story, and I think a lot of people can appreciate those. And of course, there’s laughs, there’s tension, there’s a lot of big stars. Heck, JK Simmons makes an appearance in this movie, which I was not expecting at all. And I really was not expecting him to be cast in the kind of role in which he was picked to play. At one point he is just dancing like a moron, and he plays it up so well that I am laughing not because of the physical movements, but the guy doing said physical movements. I often pick apart animated movies nowadays for an overreliance on star power, but this is a movie that uses star power like few others I have seen recently, and I would say it does a great job with it. The cast is stacked and everyone plays their part to a T.

Maybe you know the names Kaia Gerber or Willem Dafoe or Dylan O’Brien. But what makes this movie is not the stars, it is the compelling narrative, ferocious pace, and laugh out loud funny comedy that honestly could match the feeling of a watching a spectacular “Saturday Night Live” episode at home on your couch or on your bed.

In the end, “Saturday Night” is an utter delight. I absolutely loved this movie. Granted, I am a bit biased because I work in live television so it kind of reminded me of the environment in which find myself on a regular basis. These are for two very different programs, but when putting two and two together, I found some commonalities. This was a movie that from scene one takes you on a ride, and I did not want it to end. That said, when it did end, I was satisfied and infatuated with what I saw. Does it sometimes feel hyperbolic in its execution? Perhaps. That’s probably my biggest critique, but the movie still works with that feeling intact sometimes. “Saturday Night” has the vibe, filmmaking style, and comedic flair of “The Disaster Artist,” but it uses those ideas and presents them in a movie with the pacing of “Speed” starring Keanu Reeves. I am going to give “Saturday Night” a 9/10.

For those sticking around, I wanted to end on this note because what I am about to say was intended as a part of the review, but it ultimately become a bit of a tangent. Nevertheless, I am proud of it. So I kept it here for you all to read.

This film is led by Gabriel LaBelle, who is still in the early days of his career, but he is proving himself to be a fine talent. But I am impressed by his luck, if you can call it that, in terms of his resume. Because a couple years ago he starred as the lead of “The Fabelmans,” which is an excellent movie by the way. For those who did not see the movie, it is directed by Steven Spielberg and is loosely based on his life. In that film’s case, LaBelle ends up playing a version if you will of Spielberg in his youth. Now, he has gone from playing one of the most iconic filmmakers of all time to playing perhaps one of the most impactful TV creators of all time. I would not imagine people today know Lorne Michaels like they know the name Steven Spielberg, but it does not change the fact that Lorne Michaels has become one of variety TV’s staples over the years. Whatever your definition of variety TV is, I will leave that up to you. However, to this day, “Saturday Night Live” is still doing weekly episodes. NBC’s “Late Night” format is still kicking with Seth Meyers at this point, who I would say is doing a very good job. I particularly think his “A Closer Look” segments are well timed and always end on a high note. It makes me wonder what is next for LaBelle. Is he going to take on notable game show hosts next and play young Alex Trebek? I think he’d do an okay job with that. They’re both Canadian! Just an idea! Heck, he could probably play Bob Eubanks! Peter Tomarkan! I could even see him as Pat Sajak! LaBelle has chops, I am just saying!

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis,” his passion project which has now been in theaters for several weeks. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance.” 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 “Saturday Night?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Saturday Night Live” sketch? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Piece by Piece (2024): A “Happy” LEGO Lucky Time at the Movies

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Piece by Piece” is directed by Morgan Neville (20 Feet from Stardom, Won’t You be My Neighbor?) and stars Pharrell Williams in his own biographical documentary comedy entirely told though a LEGO animation style. The film centers around Williams’ life, how he grew up, how he created his music, and how he became the star people know him to be today.

I will be real… Modern music is not my forte. I have often distanced myself from the material in the past number of years that winds itself up in the “top 40.” I find that a decent amount of the biggest hits that come out nowadays are not my cup of tea. But one of the advertising points of “Piece by Piece” was the song “Happy,” which is performed by Pharrell Williams, the film’s lead. Turns out I never knew who did the song despite it playing everywhere in 2014. Yes, it was featured in “Despicable Me 2,” but those films are not the most intriguing to me. I never cared enough to watch the credits and see who did the song. But when they advertised this movie, my first thought was not, “Oh, Pharrell Williams!” Before that thought even popped in my head, I had another one and that was… “Oh great, I have to hear ‘Happy’ for the six-thousandth time…” I despised the song when it came out. Despite sounding peaceful and cheery, I found that aspect of the song to be overdone to the point of annoyance. It felt overly cartoony. But despite my lack of knowledge on the artist, I was curious to see how this film handled Pharrell Williams’ story. I knew almost nothing about Bob Marley, but I cannot say that turned me away from the movie centered around him that came out earlier this year, specifically “Bob Marley: One Love.” If anything, the overplaying of that film’s trailers when I went to the cinema almost did. And then the movie turned out to make that streak of trailers all the more irritating.

But I found out about “Piece by Piece” just as the film was coming out. I wanted to see this movie because I thought the idea was original and creative. Yes, we have seen theatrically animated “LEGO Movies” in the past, and those have been great. There is a decent amount of LEGO content done for home viewing, and the same can be said for stop motion LEGO videos. But this was something that I have never seen. A LEGO-style documentary… This is also likely the first notable “LEGO” movie of sorts that has been done since Warner Bros. gave Universal the rights to make new ones. If you want to get technical, in this case, Universal is distributing the film internationally, but in the United States, this is a Focus Features movie. For those not in the know, they’re both owned by Comcast.

I really should not say I am surprised I like this movie, but I am nevertheless surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I say that because this film comes from Morgan Neville, who also helmed the wonderful documentary “Won’t You be My Neighbor?“, centered around television’s Fred Rogers. This film is not as good as that one, but I can definitely say this is one of the most unique animated features I have ever come across. Although one thing “Piece by Piece” does better is that it fantastically lets us see the world through Pharrell Williams’ eyes. To be fair though, he was alive during the making of this project whereas Fred Rogers died more than a decade before “Won’t You be My Neighbor?” came out. But “Piece by Piece” clearly dives not only into the life of Pharrell Williams, but the mind of Pharrell Williams. This film may as well prompt an argument that almost whenever Williams dozes off, he imagines whatever comes into his head in a LEGO artstyle. Like a lot of great stories, this is about someone who sees themselves as “different” from the rest of his peers. If this were Tatooine, Williams would clearly be some variant of Luke Skywalker. This film effectively captures Williams’ one of a kind personality early on. The film is autobiographical, so there is some bias that comes with a story like this, perhaps even when it comes to admitting personal flaws. But one thing I can say about this film is that in many cases, it is a nice, easy watch. It can be a good pick for a family movie night, that is as long as everyone in the household is okay with the occasional expletive despite the film’s PG rating. That said, this is a creative, animated take on how a documentary can be done. It has recognizable music I think some children and adults would want to dance to. But as a story it is also compelling. You can tell that Pharrell Williams is passionate about his music, and how he got to his position. The documentary shows he does not forget his roots either, even if he mentions he felt out of place at times within said roots. When it comes to drama, this film does not come with a ton of it. But sometimes a lighthearted story is all you need, and this is exactly that. But for the most part, this film has something for everyone.

Kind of like the Warner Bros. LEGO features starring Chris Pratt for example, there is a colorful, glossy tone to the whole picture. The film may present itself with blocky physical limitations but manages to use those blocks in order to give a spectacle that you could only get out of a project like this one. One example is done with water. There are plenty of moments in the film where we see water. After all, this film is set partially on Virginia Beach, and we learn about Williams’ fascination with a concept that he just so happens to see every day.

Not once does the film feel gimmicky or overdone. I think doing this documentary in LEGO is not just a good idea, but having seen the final product I can confirm it is absolutely brilliant. The way they integrate the visuals with the music is very well done. I even like what they did with “Happy!” I thought that sequence was fun. Even the buildup to the song was clever, where they clearly reference “Despicable Me 2.” I am sure the head honchos at Universal were very happy to have an excuse to shove the minions in another one of their films because lord knows they do not have several thousand projects with them already… Again, despite the blocky limitations, LEGO is all about imagination. LEGO as a concept and brand has a history of allowing children, adults, families, whomever to build anything their heart desires for several years. Yes, they have many projects that are based on things that already exist, but there is no doubt a creative spark to the overall concept.

“Piece by Piece” is quite funny. The film has a really good pace to it in general and the humor that does come up got some laughs out of me. It is not as funny as the Warner Bros. “LEGO movies” which gave me some of my hardest laughs ever as a moviegoer, but it has its laughs. One of my favorite parts of the film involves an earlier moment in Pharrell Williams’ career when he gets his first paycheck. And it is not a small paycheck. It turned out to be $10,000! Not bad for an early payday. But of course, Pharrell Williams was a teenager, so he did what a lot of people who have not fully grasped the concept of financial responsibility would do and quickly blow through the entire paycheck. Also, Snoop Dogg is in the film as himself, as are most of this film’s cast, and I thought it was a step up from his previous animated outing this year, “The Garfield Movie.” Seeing him smile at one point was kind of fun too.

“Piece by Piece” is undoubtedly a unique film, and it makes me wonder if we are going to see more projects like this. Part of me is curious to see another documentary done like this but at the same time, I somewhat would not like this to become a continued trend because I enjoyed this film partially for it being one of a kind. This movie is evidently going to end up nowhere near as successful as some of the other movies we got this year. Heck, during its opening weekend, it was not even the most successful animated film at the cinema. Despite it being out a week earlier, “The Wild Robot” managed to make more money during “Piece by Piece’s” opening weekend. But if you are looking for something fun and light, “Piece by Piece” is a great pick. Is there drama? Sure. But nothing over the top. If you want to forget your troubles for an hour and a half, this is quite a good escape.

In the end, “Piece by Piece” is a great time. It is one of those movies that I will probably be thinking about at the end of the year. I do not think it is going to make my top 10, but right now it is probably in my top 20. If you love animated movies, this is a good time to go to the cinema. “Transformers: One” is a really fun adventure. “The Wild Robot” is one of the best films of the year.” “Look Back” is a captivating and moving story. For the most part, I am going to remember “Piece by Piece” more for its style as opposed to its substance. The very idea of doing this film in LEGO is clever enough, but to have it look as polished as it is, I can say that is even better. This is not to say “Piece by Piece” is a bad narrative. It is actually quite fascinating, but when it comes to style and substance, the style edges out the substance to a certain degree. This is one reason why I think “The Wild Robot” is a slightly better film because I will remember “The Wild Robot” for its characters and the stakes that build as their journeys play out. The animation sometimes has an unfinished look to it, but like “Piece by Piece,” it is also creative in its design. But I think if you are going to pick a film between these two to watch on a movie night with the family, neither one is a bad choice. I think these can make for a great animated double feature with the family. I would suggest starting with “The Wild Robot,” which is a bit heavier, a bit more emotional. And once that is over, keep the night going with “Piece by Piece,” which contains less drama and some dance-worthy music. Of the two movies, I would call it the palate cleanser. Whether you decide to watch “Piece by Piece” with the family, by yourself, or as part of a double feature somewhere, you are doing yourself a favor. I am going to give “Piece by Piece” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Saturday Night” and “Megalopolis.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Piece by Piece?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite LEGO project? It can be a movie, a video game, a toyset, anything! What is your favorite LEGO creation? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Look Back (2024): One of 2024’s Most Moving Pictures Yet

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Look Back” is directed by Kiyotaka Oshiyama (Devilman: Crybaby, The Boy and the Heron) and is based on a manga of the same name. This film adaptation is about two girls who could not be more different. Fujino (Yumi Kawai) is a confident student who goes to school every day and Kyomoto (Mizuki Yoshida) is a shut-in, but the two end up sharing a connection through their love for manga and form an unlikely bond.

I am not exactly what one would call famous for my last minute purchases, but I can confirm that I have a history of making them. And this even goes for some of the movies I watch. I had not even heard of “Brian and Charles” until maybe an hour before watching the film when I popped on the first trailer from my home. But I found it to be a solid movie, and therefore a good use of my time even if I did not take much of it to consider watching the film. I remember going to see “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” on opening Thursday because my party and I had tickets to see “Noah” around the same time, but the showtime was canceled. Moments later, one thing led to another and we ended up seeing “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” which continues to reign as one of my top titles in the MCU. While not as last minute as those two, I was prompted to check out “Look Back” after seeing something something about it online. I booked a showtime the same day on the AMC app, and took my car to the mall to go watch the movie. I did not watch a trailer, or any other marketing. I knew almost nothing about the movie other than it being of the anime medium and the project being connected to someone who also created “Chainsaw Man,” which for the record is a property to which I have personally not given any of my time.

I am proud to say that not only is this one of the best last minute, barely researched purchases I have ever made, but this is one of the best films of the year. And I say this knowing about a chunk of this year’s animated slate. I know that “Inside Out 2” is getting tons of praise and making lots of money. I know that just a couple weeks ago, I have come onto this blog to sing praises about “The Wild Robot,” which is now in my top 5 DreamWorks animated projects. Despite seeing this film a couple weeks back, part of me still needs time to marinate and decide if I like this movie or “The Wild Robot” more. To be completely honest, those two are neck and neck for different reasons. While I think “The Wild Robot” is uniquely animated and offers an excellent take on parenting through the unlikely bond of a robot and a goose, I love this film for different reasons, and you could argue these reasons have bias attached to them. But while you could argue there is bias, it could also indicate that the people making the movie enormously understand their audience.

This film is about two young, passionate manga artists. They are not famous professionals. In fact, they are still in school. But they knew about each other sometime before having an encounter that goes in an unexpected direction. These characters have a common interest, but their personalities and lifestyles are not a match. Despite that, they find themselves in a situation where they end up bonding further and even working together. As someone who dedicates myself so heavily into various crafts such as this blog, my short films over the years, or some of my more professional endeavors. I found traits from both of these characters that I also have seen in myself over the years.

Fujino represents me by highlighting one of my personal flaws. That being perfectionism. In a way, perfectionism should be a good thing. After all, I am dedicating myself so heavily to doing something so well that such efforts should be rewarded. Only problem is, perfectionism is not great when you want to keep your mind sane. This leads me to another aspect that comes into play for this character, particularly jealousy. Fujino starts off the film as the best manga artist of her peers. Her works are published in the school paper on a weekly basis. Everything is going great until she has competition in said paper. She sees the work of Kyomoto, a student who does not leave her home. This pushes Fujino to work harder and create something better than she feels she has donw previously. But we also see moments where Fujino’s envy gets the best of her. It prompts her to take a certain action that some would say is uncalled for.

Kyomoto is representative of myself as an introvert. Do I leave my house? Oh, of course. But I do not have many close friends. And I often go to events alone, many times with the most absolute of intentions. If any of my friends are reading this, I love you, but sometimes I need to be alone. It is nothing against you, I just like my space. I also sort of feel that way as an artist and a storyteller. Through my time working at a news station and making short films, I understand that projects like those often require collaboration and teamwork. But I also love making art because there are times where said art is directly based on something I came up with. Something I have imagined. I will start making something from scratch and finish it in a similar fashion all by myself.

This film also reminded me of another anime, Mamoru Hosoda’s “Belle,” because that film dives deep into how we see other people. But whereas “Belle” dives deep into the mystery of how people represent themselves online, we see the story throw a curveball of sorts when our main duo first meet. While we see Fujino channel her envy against Kyomoto, we find out Kyomoto is obsessed with Fujino’s work. It is quite poetic to be frank, because yes, Fujino may have doubted herself as an artist because of how she viewed Kyomoto’s work, but the moments leading up to the duo’s first encounter shows that Fujino’s work paid off. Not only was she flattered that someone appreciates her material, but that flattery came from her own rival.

Seeing these two together was one of this film’s many highlights. Every scene between them was believable and played a part in the film’s overall emotional touch. I enjoy stories where we see two different people somehow click by the slightest of miracles. But of course, the two people have to emit chemistry, and these two have it in spades. I watched the film in Japanese, and both voice actors play off each other perfectly. I believed every exchange.

The movie is also a beast when it comes to its technical aspects. It gets rather creative with its animation style. While the animation style takes a traditional 2D approach, it contains moments that have a manga feel to them. You can tell that there was some love dedicated to the medium in this film’s story. In fact, one of my favorite sequences of the movie from a technical standpoint is where we see Fujino draw a yonkoma, or a four-cell manga for those not in the know. We see the sequence play out from one cell to the next in a limited color spectrum. I thought the way that was done was clever. It kind of reminded me of the “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” movies, where we see the footage transition from live-action to the diary drawings. It is a nice visual despite its limited effort.

By the way, I listened to the film’s soundtrack while making this review. It is excellent. Haruka Nakamura’s score is quite powerful. If “Look Back” is in a theater near you, I would by a ticket just to hear the music in all its glory. It was definitely a standout.

That said, if you are looking for an animated film to watch that can make you jump for joy, this is probably where I would instead recommend “The Wild Robot.” That film too has its teary moments, but perhaps not to the degree of this one. “Look Back” takes a riveting turn in the second half. I do not want to get into spoilers, but there is a moment that I could have not have predicted coming even from a mile away. The more I think about it, the more I look at the title of this film, “Look Back,” the more I maybe should have foreseen an emotional gut punch at such a point. But regardless, when this moment comes, the rest of the film is something that I cannot say made me sob my eyes out, but it is pretty sad to watch at times. Some could argue “Look Back” is an easy watch because of its short runtime, quick pace, and likable characters. But I will warn you that if you are someone who easily cries during more emotional films and wants to resist that feeling, then “Look Back” might not be your first choice. But if you can handle some tears, you are in for a film that pays tribute to the love of art, why people dedicate themselves to their passions, and explores an unlikely friendship between two characters who I came to adore by the film’s conclusion.

In the end, “Look Back” is one of those movies that reminds me of my love of art, my dedication to creativity, and how important it is to have other people by your side. It shows that we all have a story to tell, and sometimes those stories have their challenges. “Look Back” is one of my biggest surprises of the year. I had no idea this movie was coming out. And unfortunately, right now, it is only playing in one theater near me. But if it is playing somewhere near you, give it a chance sometime. This film is near perfect. I am going to give “Look Back” a 9/10.

“Look Back” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is for another animated movie, “Piece by Piece,” an all new documentary entirely presented in a LEGO artstyle. Is it a gimmick? Is it creative? You will find out soon enough. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Saturday Night” and “Megalopolis.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Look Back?” What did you think about it? Or, what are some of your creative passions? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.

Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.

I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”

There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.

I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.

It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.

I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.

Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.

You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.

Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.

But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.

Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.

For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.

There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.

The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.

For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.

This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.

In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Wild Robot (2024): DreamWorks’ Incredible Story On the Beauty and Struggles of Parenting

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Wild Robot” is directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods) and stars Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian, The Last of Us), Kit Connor (His Dark Materials, Heartstopper), Bill Nighy (Emma., The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Joy Ride), Mark Hamill (Star Wars, Kingsman: The Secret Service), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice), Matt Berry (The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, What We Do in the Shadows) and Ving Rhames (The Garfield Movie, Mission: Impossible). This film is about a robot who goes by its product name, ROZZUM Unit 7134, or “Roz” for short. The story dives into Roz’s adventures in the wild, including an unexpected encounter with a baby goose, which leads to her becoming said goose’s parent. Now she must do all she can to master something that goes beyond her programming.

“The Wild Robot” is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It is easily my most anticipated animated film of the year. I have been super excited for this film ever since I saw the teaser trailer before watching “Kung Fu Panda 4” in the theater. The footage contained tons of beautiful shots, an interesting color scheme, and even though it did not give a lot the story away, I had a strong feeling this movie was going to be deep. It was going to make the audience think. I had a feeling that “The Wild Robot” would be the 2020s version of “Wall-E,” both in terms of material and quality. Before I get into my thoughts about the movie, I can say the movie has some similarities to “Wall-E,” it has the same DNA, but it is a much different animal.

“The Wild Robot” is what you get when you strip certain parts of “Wall-E” and insert them into a movie whose story is primarily about parenting. Whereas “Wall-E” is about a robot finding love with another robot and saving a plant, this film is about a robot finding out who she is while also dealing with what some would argue is one of the hardest tasks you can ever be given.

While this movie’s protagonist is dealing with a hard task, it is easy for me to say that “The Wild Robot” is one of the best movies of the year. As far as animated movies go, it is hard to say it gets better than this. As much as I am happy for “Inside Out 2” becoming the biggest animated film of all time, “The Wild Robot” clicked with me more. That said, you cannot go wrong with watching either film. But if I had to pick one, “The Wild Robot” would be my choice.

“The Wild Robot” is perhaps an answer for the parents who are forced to take their children to the theater to watch these kinds of movies. Of course, animated movies often appeal to children, but it should not be forgotten that the parents are probably the ones paying for their tickets. I want to know how parents will view this movie by the time it is over. Because I believe this is a story that will appeal to a lot of them.

I see movies as escapes from reality, so if I were to pitch a movie like this to a parent and tell them that this story is perhaps an encapsulation of something you are already dealing with, there could be a better way to sell it. I do not know. But some of the best movies are those that relate to the audience, that speak to them. They are movies that people can identify with containing characters whose personalities and experiences are similar to their own. I think a lot of parents will find something to relate to when they see the character of Roz and everything she goes through. Now you may be wondering, will kids enjoy this movie? Of course they will! It is funny, it is action-packed at times, and it contains characters that easily appeal to that demographic. The main character is a robot and by her side are a variety of wild animals. Kids love those! For all I know, for some younger viewers, this is going to be one of those movies, kind of like “The Incredibles” was for me, that I enjoyed watching as a kid because of its adventure and action elements, but rewatched as an adult with a greater appreciation for how it handles its characters’ struggles of getting older. I honestly would want to know if parents will have more fun with this movie than their own children. But I can say I saw this movie in a theater full of children on a Sunday morning. They seemed to be positively interacting with it for much of the runtime, so it definitely has their appeal.

I would also like to talk about the voicework of “The Wild Robot.” I have seen the trailers for this film, so I did see the typical casting list where they flash a ton of celebrity names. This movie continues the cliche where we use celebrity voice artists as opposed to certain people who primarily do voicework. Although to be fair some of the cast has some notable voiceover experience, like Mark Hamill. With that in mind, not only does everyone do a good job here, I could not tell that they were voicing their own characters. I almost forgot these actors were in the movie. Sure, I knew Lupita Nyong’o was the lead. But as I heard her voice, it sounded more hyperactive than what I used to hearing from her. I am not sure if she piped herself up or if there is a filter being applied to her recordings in post. But it works. I have seen Pedro Pascal in a number of projects, and I not tell he was Fink the fox. Ving Rhames was also in this movie, and I guarantee many of you reading this recognize his voice. From “Mission: Impossible” on the big screen to the current Arby’s commercials on the small screen, Rhames always has a commanding presence. And his character, Thunderbolt the falcon, is also a great example of such a presence. He sounds bold and god-like with every line. But even then, I could not tell that was Ving Rhames. This is not a dig, if anything it is the highest of compliments.

Even though this movie’s cast is recognizable, most, if not all of these cast members put on a disguisable performance. The movie does a much better job at masking the actors doing these voices than say “DC League of Super Pets,” whose leads’ voices I could recognize and become distracted by in a heartbeat. When the credits rolled, I whispered to myself, “Wait, Mark Hamill was in this?!” Looking back, I believe I knew that in advance. But for one thing, I did not see the trailer in awhile. And again, it goes to show how good these voice performances are. These are characters, not celebrities playing themselves.

Going back to what I said about this film being like “Wall-E,” “The Wild Robot” never specifies when exactly it is set. But I was able to pick up that like “Wall-E,” this movie was set in the future. Both films tend to highlight the mistakes we have made as humans. Whether it is not solving climate change or trying so hard to find a new home to the point where we may have forgotten to preserve the one we have. Also, the central protagonists of these movies are robots, which you could argue we are over-relying on for our many conveniences as we speak. Both “The Wild Robot” and “Wall-E” feature several robots created by large corporations. Both robots who we know as these films’ protagonists serve their respective purposes, but they are also tasked with making people’s lives easier. In the case of “The Wild Robot,” we see that Roz’s attention extends to other animals. Although to be fair, “Wall-E” mostly had human characters. I remember there being a cockroach in the movie, but that may be it.

This film also reminded me of “The Iron Giant.” By that I mean the movie is in a sense an edition of that movie where the roles are reversed. Kind of… If you have ever seen “The Iron Giant,” you would know the robot is the fish out of water character, and the main protagonist, Hogarth, helps him adapt to being on earth. In this film, we see Roz go from adapting to her environment on earth, to teaching a gosling everything she knows. There are plenty of animated movies out there featuring robots. Heck, my last review was for “Transformers One,” and that movie has plenty of them. But I am proud to say that “The Wild Robot” is just as masterful as “Wall-E” and “The Iron Giant,” two movies featuring robots that deserve every ounce of praise that they can possibly get. If you want me to be real though, of these three movies, I think “The Wild Robot” is the weakest of the bunch.

This leads me into my problems with the movie. For one thing, the animation style, while definitely creative, sometimes feels unfinished, perhaps on purpose. Sometimes it works, other times it feels cheap. There are several environments that caught my eye. The design of the robot is well done. I loved seeing how this movie represents foliage in certain scenes, which makes it a proper release for this time of year. But there are also certain places or effects that come off as less textured than others. Part of me also questions the way this movie addresses communication between Roz and the animals. We see Roz spending time translating the animals’ language, so we learn after some time that Roz can understand the animals. But we are seeing Roz communicate and have full-fledged conversations with these animals in English. I get that a lot of movies tend to personify animals and have them speak English. But I am surprised on how well both the robot and these animals understood each other. Perhaps all the conversations were in English for us, the audience. It is a minor complaint, if that. Maybe with a rewatch that complaint will go away. Besides, the movie has good dialogue. It has a lot of funny lines from several characters, even those who barely appear in the film at all.

The script itself is an impressive look at what it is like to be a parent. I say this as if I have kids. I do not. But from what I have heard and seen about parenting, this movie presents parenting as a concept that no one really understands until they try it, until they do it. There is a moment where Roz finds out she is the first point of contact of a newborn gosling. Pinktail, a possum played by Catherine O’Hara, explains to Roz that she is now said gosling’s mother. Roz responds by saying she does not have the programming, to which Pinktail tells her “No one does.” I was a first-born child. I can only imagine what my parents were thinking when they first had me. I am sure they were happy, but also in a neverending state of asking questions. I probably presented them with situations that they did not see coming. Even if I was a second-born child, chances are I could have done the same thing. But I recognize that raising me was a learning curve. I can only imagine how hard it is for Roz, who is not only of a different kind than the gosling, who we eventually know to go by the name Brightbill, but is programmed specifically for helping humans. Did she ask for something like this to happen? No she did not. But she handles it as best she can because while parenting is not in her programming, as a robot she is designed to complete tasks, and to her, this is just the latest one she has been given.

It is also rather refreshing to see an animated movie about a parental figure like this. When I look back at DreamWorks’ animated slate for example, the movies are normally about younger or childless characters. Sure, Shrek and Fiona have children, but they progress to that point after multiple movies. Yes, you can say Hiccup from “How to Train Your Dragon” is parent-like, but his relationship sometimes presents itself somewhat similarly to that of an owner and their pet as opposed to a parent and child. That, and the first film spends time showing complications between Hiccup and his own father. Although in “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World,” the movie ends on a note that is perhaps reminiscent of what it must feel like for a child to leave the nest after so many years. Age is not the biggest topic or concern in “The Wild Robot,” but whereas we have seen several movies of this nature where there is a mentor figure hanging somewhere in the background, maybe as a prominent supporting character, Roz, our main hero sort of becomes a mentor figure herself. Yes, she is a fish out of water, and you could also argue that Fink the fox and other characters are helping Roz in her journey. But it is nevertheless refreshing to see a movie of this kind where we focus on Roz’s concern on whether her goose will be able to fly, as opposed to one where the goose must learn how to fly no matter the cost.

And it is not like the movie refuses to give depth to Brightbill the goose. The movie decently highlights his journey and his individualities. This movie represents a journey that many parents can relate to, but also does a great job at showing Brightbill’s struggles of fitting in. He is kind of an outcast. Not only did I see his struggles that came with being different, but in the case of a character like Roz, I could only imagine her struggle realizing how others treat her child times. But this is ultimately not Brightbill’s movie, it is Roz’s movie. And I can guarantee, Roz’s movie is a fantastic one.

In the end, “The Wild Robot” is one of the year’s finest films. The animation is sometimes iffy, and the climax feels oddly bigger than I would have expected out of a film like this, but it does not change the fact that this is one of DreamWorks’ most unique movies. Is it my favorite DreamWorks animation? Probably not. Given time to marinate over the past week I thought of a few movies I enjoyed more. The first two “Kung Fu Panda” movies come to mind. “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” has gotten a few watches out of yours truly since its release nearly two years ago. “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” is one of those films that came out at a perfect time for me and I find it to be a marvelous story. But if I had to round out my top 5 DreamWorks Animations, “The Wild Robot” would probably be up there at this point. And it deserves to be. It is a deep story showcasing both the beauty and the struggles of parenting. It is about a robot who learns to become more than what it was designed to be. It is a movie that kids will probably enjoy when they are younger, but will probably see in a different way as they age. If there is one movie in theaters you should see right now, this might be it. I am going to give “The Wild Robot” a 9/10.

“The Wild Robot” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new sequel, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” which I will give some credit, the movie is prompting conversations. As far as whether my addition to the conversation is positive or negative, you will find out about that soon enough. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Wild Robot?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your favorite DreamWorks Animations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Transformers One (2024): One of the Most Human Transformers Stories Yet, Despite There Being No Humans in the Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Transformers One” is directed by Josh Cooley (Toy Story 4, Inside Out) and stars Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Brian Tyree Henry (Eternals, Godzilla vs. Kong), Scarlett Johansson (Iron Man 2, Don Jon) Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs, Miracle Workers), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Man of Steel), and Jon Hamm (Mad Men, Baby Driver). This film is about the origins of robots Orion Pax and D-16, who eventually become Optimus Prime and Megatron. As a team, these two and several others are given the powers and capabilities to change their planet, Cybertron, forever.

I was born at the tail end of the 1990s, so I was alive at a time when Transformers was continuously shrinking in relevancy. Then a big bang happened in 2007 when the franchise’s first Michael Bay-directed film came out. That is when I first heard about the property, that is when I also started watching it. I had little to no experience with any of the toys beforehand. And no, I have not gone back to watch any of the “Transformers” material from the 20th century. I am somewhat familiar with it. I am aware of “Transformers: The Movie” killing off all the Autobots and that scarring several viewers. But I have not seen the movie myself. But even with my lack of experience of older “Transformers” material, I can confirm that my biggest problem with a number of the live-action “Transformers” films of this era is that they do not feel as character-based as they could be. Not to mention, despite having “Transformers” in the name, the movies are more about the humans than anyone else. Admittedly, I like the first Michael Bay “Transformers” film. I had some fun with “Dark of the Moon.” “Bumblebee” was fantastic. And while it is not the most memorable of the bunch, “Rise of the Beasts” definitely has its moments.

That said, “Transformers One” removes the humans and makes the movie about its titular robots, which is refreshing. The movie is entirely set on Cybertron and features zero scenes on earth. Despite these differences, this movie arguably has the most human story I have witnessed from the “Transformers” franchise yet. It is very much an underdog story about rising up, questioning authority, and embracing the power of friendship.

The main friendship we see is that of Orion Pax (lower right) and D-16 (upper right), played by Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree Henry. I bought every moment of their connection. The two come off as genuine friends. They have some admirable moments where they bond, they stand up for each other, exchange items. The two are best buds. Both of their respective actors do a great job in this film, which relieves me. After all, this is yet another animated project featuring a cast of mostly celebrity voice actors whose names and faces are known in popular live-action projects. These people may as well have been used as a selling point to adults who would be weary about taking their kids to a film like this. Granted, some of these actors have voiceover experience. Scarlett Johansson was in “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie” as well as “Sing 2.” Keegan-Michael Key has several voiceover credits including “Toy Story 4,” the 2019 “Lion King,” “Migration,” and “IF.” He’s doing well for himself in the voiceover department. Everyone does a good job here and the story serves them well.

This movie is perfectly paced. Every action scene had my attention. The character moments are admirable. The humor stuck the landing. It is not the funniest movie I have seen in years, but it had quite a few laughs. The best part about the movie, it follows a paramount rule of show business, which is to leave the audience wanting more. By the end of this film, I was happy with what I got, but there was a point where I wanted to see where these characters would take their adventures next. I remember when I saw “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” which finished on a note where certain ends were not tied together, and I did not really care as much as I could have. This film has a balance in its journey and conclusion where I was satisfied by what was in front of me, but it also left me eagerly hoping to find out what is next.

The film also has a nice polish to its animation. In this age, having bad animation in a major motion picture is kind of a surprise nowadays. But this film, like some others I have been seeing recently, has an individualistic look to it. I cannot say its style offers the diversity of the “Spider-Verse” franchise. But “Transformers One” is stylized just enough to have an identity of its own. The way the movie plays around with some of its shots are fast-paced and immersive. Cybertron itself is sometimes a sight to to behold. This movie is based on toys, so of course the color palette is eye-popping.

Despite my recent positives, I have problems with the movie. For one thing, the storyline is a bit predictable. Sure, as someone who knows about “Transformers,” and the way certain characters are, I know how some characters will wind up by the end of the film. That is not my biggest problem. But there is one other character in the film who as soon as I saw him in the beginning and the way he was written, it was not that hard for me to speculate where exactly this character would be taken. Again, this is a character who has been used in the franchise previously, including one of the Michael Bay movies, all of which I have seen. But I am willing to bet if this was my first “Transformers” anything, I would have nevertheless found this character’s path to be utterly predictable. Maybe unless I was a young child because I have not seen enough movies.

Speaking of young children, I do think that “Transformers One” is a fine family film. Although I would not necessarily say this movie is entirely kid-friendly. At least for all ages that is. There are a couple instances of violence, granted, it is cartoon violence, that kind of push the line as for what you can see in a modern PG movie. Heck, even some of the language pushes the line. There are no f-bombs or s-words here, but Bumblebee repeatedly refers to himself as “Badassatron.” If I had kids I would not prevent them from watching this movie. Heck, part of me would want to put this on for them before “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which is rated PG and came out just before PG-13 was ever slapped onto a film. If my future children watch “Transformers One” say when they are 7 or 8, I have no problem with it. Ask me again if I become a father, but still… “Transformers One” is a good movie with solid action, a good story, and despite some moments that go a bit far, the movie manages to have positive lessons for its viewers to take with them. I would question taking a certain type of four year old for example to see “Transformers One” in the theater, but if they are a little older, things should be fine. Parents, if you are reading this, I say this as someone who is not a parent, so maybe I am just a moron, but use your own judgment. Despite being one of this year’s most attractive and colorful films, “Transformers One” might not be as well-rounded for all ages as say “Inside Out 2.”

In the end, “Transformers One” is an incredible time. Some people might be rejoicing right now and saying that this may be the first great “Transformers” movie in ages, or maybe even ever. For the record, I disagree. I think Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” is good. His third movie is good. Travis Knight’s “Bumblebee” might be my favorite of the live-action ones they have done. “Transformers One” is honestly up there with “Bumblebee” for me. If it were not for being one of this year’s more predictable narratives at times, that would probably be the one significant thing that could make a movie like this better. But “Transformers One” handles its material with excellence. It is great for both adults and kids. It might not be suitable for all kids, but I am sure many kids will enjoy this just fine. I am going to give “Transformers One” an 8/10.

“Transformers One” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another animated movie to talk about soon, and that is “The Wild Robot!” That review will be available soon. Also coming up, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Joker: Folie a Deux…” The most divisive movie in ages. My goodness… That review is going to be fun. …Probably. 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 “Transformers One?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie about friendship that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is directed by Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and stars Michael Keaton (Batman, Spider-Man: Homecoming), Winona Ryder (Little Women, The Age of Innocence), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Schitt’s Creek), Justin Theroux (The Girl on the Train, The LEGO Ninjago Movie), Monica Bellucci (The Passion of the Christ, The Matrix Reloaded) Jenna Ortega (Wednesday, Jane the Virgin), and Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse). This film is the sequel to the 1988 film “Beetlejuice” and follows the Deetz family as three generations return home to Winter River. Meanwhile, Lydia Deetz’s life turns upside down when her daughter, Astrid, accidentally opens the portal to the Afterlife.

Much like this summer’s “Twisters,” I perhaps got around to “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” out of pure luck. Why? Much like the original “Twister,” I only saw the original “Beetlejuice” once. And I managed to watch 1996’s “Twister” just days before its follow-up released. The same can also be said for 1988’s “Beetlejuice.” As for my thoughts on that original film, I found it to be clever and it occasionally delivered a few chuckles. The production design and costumes are also pretty good. But it is not my favorite Tim Burton movie. That said, I did watch the marketing for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” and was somewhat captivated by it, even before seeing the original film. It looked like a good time, funny, and aesthetically pleasing.

For the record, I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” on its opening weekend in September. One of the first positives I can say about “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” and this is a timely one, is that it set the mood for spooky season. I love fall. I love this time of year. Especially as someone who lives in New England and has high standards for foliage. One tree’s trash is another man’s treasure. Speaking of my mood, this movie starts off by putting me in a good one. While the movie feels somewhat updated compared to the original, it is easy to tell it is part of the same universe, and it all starts with the intro credits. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” starts off in the best possible way it can. It kicks things off pretty similar to the original, where you have the opening credits, a series of nice-looking shots, and Danny Elfman’s awesome music booming in the background. It is very much a successful welcome back to this universe similar to how “Top Gun: Maverick” welcomed audiences back a couple years ago with some similar musical choices to its original counterpart.

Much like the original, Michael Keaton steals the show as Beetlejuice. He is funny, over the top, and gives it his all in the role. This is Keaton’s latest long-awaited comeback as a character he played in the 1980s. You may recall he reprised his role as Batman last year in “The Flash.” While I did not despise Keaton as Batman in “The Flash,” Keaton shines much brighter this time around as Beetlejuice. He is delightfully kooky and captures my attention every second he is on screen.

While this movie does see the return of actors like Winona Ryder, Catherine O’Hara, and the recently mentioned Michael Keaton, I was intrigued by the newer characters too. Believe it or not, I never watched “Wednesday” or the recent “Scream” movies so I was not fully familiar with Jenna Ortega’s resume. The only major role of hers I have seen was in 2022’s “X.” But I am delighted to say Ortega does an okay job in her role. I thought while her character was written with some cliches, I thought Ortega played her part well. I was invested in her role. She also develops a connection with a character named Jeremy Frazier, played by Arthur Conti. Their connection takes the story in a much deeper direction than I was anticipating. But while I appreciated the depth of the story by the time we get to see these two together, there are some things in this movie that I would have preferred to be cleaned up.

The biggest problem I have with “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is that this movie tries to shove so much into one project. This movie is on the shorter side, with a runtime of 104 minutes. But at times it feels longer. There are scenes in this film that go on for what feels like an eternity. Again, I had fun with this movie. But not only do scenes overplay, but there are so many story elements going on at the same time that “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” falls into the typical sequel trap where it tends to go bigger, but unfortunately, not better. I cannot pinpoint to an element that breaks the movie beyond repair, but there is nevertheless so much going on.

Speaking of a lot of things going on, this film at times comes off as tonally inconsistent. To repeat what I said recently, the film is fun. That said, it is not all fun all the time. And when the tones shift, that transition feels nearly seismic. There are instances, particularly in the beginning of the film, that came off as serious. The movie’s serious moments were not as well executed as I would have hoped. They did not invest me as heavily as the moments that followed. As for the moments that followed, those are the moments that I came to the movie hoping to see and just so happened to be pleased by. The start of the film, perhaps the first half hour or so, feels dark and gloomy. However, I should not pretend this is not exactly dissimilar to the original film, where within the first ten minutes, we see a couple drive off a bridge and die. But even when that happens, there is a sense of wonder, a sense of mystery, a sense of fun. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” in comparison starts off making me wonder when the fun begins.

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has some clever concepts and ideas. I like the direction in which they took Lydia Deetz’s character. We now see her hosting a show called Ghost House, which deals with the supernatural. One concept that stuck with me by the end of the film is a Soul Train that takes passengers to the Great Beyond. It is not just called that because of something that could happen to your soul, but there’s a cool sequence where we see tons of people around said train dancing to soul music. I think by the end of the film, that becomes one of the concepts that feels overdone, but still, it was clever.

As for other positives in the film, Willem Dafoe does a good job as Wolf Jackson, I thought he brought some energy to the project. The color palette of this film is gorgeously vivid and immersive. It is truly eye-popping at times. Like I said regarding the original, the sets in this film are also a work of art. They are otherworldly and offer some extensively pleasing detail. This film aces its looks, but falters a tad when it comes to its personality. It comes off as somebody you know, perhaps a good friend, trying too hard to please or impress you. While they may be partially successful in said task, part of you wants them to calm down. Their point has been established and their task has been accomplished eons ago, so to speak.

In the end, I am glad I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” Does it feel like a movie only Tim Burton could make? For the most part I would say yes. But the movie is ultimately a series of ideas that sometimes works and at others, fail to stick the landing. If you liked Michael Keaton in the original film, you will like him in this one. He does a fantastic job as Beetlejuice. I am not one of those people who hails the original “Beetlejuice” as an all timer or as my favorite Tim Burton project, but I think this sequel is a step down from its 1988 predecessor. If I had to pick a film to watch tonight between the two, my pick is the original. I did not hate “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” There are moments to appreciate, but it is nowhere even close to being flawless. I am going to give “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for a couple animated films, “Transformers One” and “The Wild Robot!” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Beetlejuice” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!