“Here” is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) and stars Tom Hanks (Toy Story, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood), Robin Wright (Forrest Gump, The Princess Bride), Paul Bettany (WandaVision, A Knight’s Tale), and Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Above Suspicion). This film chronicles various events over millions of years from the same location, capturing the moments and lives of those who live there.
First off, for those not aware or for those who happen to live outside the United States, this review is being posted just before Thanksgiving. Because you cannot have Thanksgiving… without “T Hanks.” In all seriousness though, Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis make for one of the most notable actor-director duos in Hollywood. The two have worked together to create films including “Cast Away,” “The Polar Express,” and in the past couple years, Disney+’s “Pinocchio.” Both people are reuniting for their latest collaboration, “Here.” Also appearing in the film, Robin Wright, therefore allowing for a “Forrest Gump” reunion. The fact that this film had talented, experienced people is only part of why I was looking forward to it. Having first seen the trailer to “Here” at my local multiplex a few months ago, I have been excited for it ever since. I was under the impression that this could end up being a unique film with a lot of potential.
From a camerawork and cinematography perspective, “Here” is by no means as immersively complex as “Birdman,” a movie that is set in multiple locations and uses blink you’ll miss it techniques to trick your mind into thinking it is done as one singular shot. But the selling point that kept me most interested in “Here” was getting to see the camera sit in a spot where it does not move. Having seen the film, I think the film gets creative with that concept, spanning different points in time. Everything from prehistory to the birth of the United States to modern times where we see the interior of a suburban house. The movie always maintains a quick pace from scene to scene, and even in moments that feel less relevant to the big picture, I was still hypnotized by everything that was going on.
That said, much like another Robert Zemeckis film featuring Tom Hanks, “The Polar Express,” this film could use some work when it comes to the characters. I have gone several holidays watching “The Polar Express” and even though the point a to b progression is clear for its protagonist, the Hero Boy, I cannot say I resonated with that film’s characters maybe to a degree I would have preferred. I always found the “experience” of watching “Polar Express” to be immersive, often inviting. But I wish I got to know the people in the film on a deeper level. Most of them are one-note or stereotypical. Similar to the ride to the North Pole in “The Polar Express,” I like the journey “Here” takes me on. This movie also has one notable improvement over “The Polar Express.” It does a better job fleshing out its main characters, a task that marvels me considering how many points in time and the list of people this film deals with. But even with that in mind, the characters themselves are still not the greatest when it comes to Zemeckis’s filmography. I am not going to remember anyone’s name from this film within the next couple months. If I watch this film a second time, which for the record, I would, I am probably going to be just as immersed as I was in the first. But whereas “The Polar Express” takes you on a fantastical voyage, “Here” is essentially like watching security camera footage but with twice the production value.
The one consistent story through a security camera is not always a person being captured, but rather the room or space someone just so happens to be in. Similarly, the story for “Here” is not consistent. It is bits and pieces. Perhaps it is an allegory on life itself. As we age, we remember certain times of our lives more than others, and maybe this movie is a reflection of our deepest memories. There are moments that speak to us, there are little things in the background, and even some times of our lives we would rather forget. It also shows how places can become a foundation of who we are. If you have a home for a long time, like the place or not, it becomes a part of you.
While I found the pace of the film to be a positive, I also found its fidgety structure to be a negative. The film is presented in a non-linear order, and in some ways, it works. Part of me wonders if Zemeckis wanted to do this film linearly at one point and was not loving it. I honestly do not know if the film would be any better had it been linear, in fact, one could argue it would be worse, I wonder if most audiences would like it. But still, the film is a bit clunky, though somewhat surprisingly, it also happens to be clear.
Once again, this is the latest project between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis. But of course, another one of Zemeckis’s collaborators is here too, composer Alan Silvestri. Far and away, my favorite scores I have heard this year are definitely “Dune Part Two” and “IF.” And while Silvestri does not bring forth a score as memorable as those, he holds his own. Similar to “Inside Out 2,” this film opens with music that comes off as welcoming as can be. It is grand, it is prominent, it almost takes me into the screen. I could see myself listening to parts of the score in my free time.
For those who do not know their film history, “Forrest Gump” won Best Picture at the Academy Awards the year it came out. Having seen “Here,” it is hard to say that this film is going to be nominated for even one Oscar this year. Yes, Tom Hanks is given a lot to do. But I cannot name a moment of this film where he particularly stands out, and the same can be said for most of the ensemble. Though if I recall any actor in this film being a surprising standout, it would be Paul Bettany. “Here” is definitely not the worst film in Zemeckis’s library, but it is far from his best. It is no “Back to the Future,” though I will definitely remember this film more than “Allied” or that adaptation he did of Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” that ended up going to HBO Max. But I cannot lie, even though I would not say the film is perfect, it is a unique, fun, fascinating journey and I think it is remarkable how much material and substance some scenes are able to present about a specific time, specific people, and their lives with just so little material to work with.
In the end, “HERE” are my thoughts on the movie… I had a really good time with it! Is it messy? Sure, but much like the characters sometimes come to realize about the house we see for most of the film, it is sometimes a beautiful mess. I also dug the ending. The movie caps off on an emotional note. Kind of like Robert Zemeckis’s 2018 film “Welcome to Marwen,” I wonder if I am going to be alone when it comes to my positive opinion regarding this film. I loved “Welcome to Marwen” when I saw it. In fact, I loved it so much that I was shocked to find out how many other people did not like it. Having seen “Here” however, I can get why this movie would not work for certain people. At times it feels more like an experiment than a concrete story. But it does not mean the experiment is boring. I was invested from start to finish. I am going to give “Here” a 7/10.
“Here” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more reviews coming soon, stay tuned for my thoughts on “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K, “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Here?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite collaboration between Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the final entry to the Election Days review series! Every year I make an effort to do a weekly series of older releases. This year has been tough to fit one in due to work, travel, life, and so on. But I figured what better time to do a series like this one than during an Election Year in the United States. If you have not read my other reviews in the series so far, be sure to check out my thoughts on “The Campaign,” “W.,” and “On the Basis of Sex.” This week’s review is going to be for the film “Elvis & Nixon.” I have definitely heard of the film before taking on this review series. It came out in 2016, back when Scene Before started. It is one of the earliest films from Amazon Studios, which has now become Amazon MGM Studios. But for whatever reason, I never bothered to check it out. That said, I watched the trailer, I thought looked good, so I thought I would give it a shot. Here are my thoughts on the movie.
“Elvis & Nixon” is directed by Liza Johnson (Dead to Me, Silicon Valley) and stars Michael Shannon (99 Homes, Revolutionary Road), Kevin Spacey (Horrible Bosses, House of Cards), Alex Pettyfer (Endless Love, Magic Mike), Johnny Knoxville (Bad Grandpa, Jackass), Colin Hanks (Orange County, King Kong), Evan Peters (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Invasion), Sky Ferreira (Putty Hill, The Green Inferno), Tracy Letts (Wiener-Dog, Homeland), Tate Donovan (Hercules, Damages), and Ashley Benson (Days of Our Lives, Pretty Little Liars). This film is based on true events and is about a meeting between famed musician Elvis Presley and U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1970, an event that spawned the most requested photograph in the history of the National Archives.
The past couple years have given us some exposure to Elvis Presley on the big screen. Whether it is through “Elvis” in 2022, which I did not enjoy. Or “Priscilla” in 2023, which I thought was one of the best movies of that year. These two films are deep dives into of each of the titular individuals’ lives, but “Elvis & Nixon,” which came out years before both of those films, is a little different. This film specifically focuses on one point in time during Presley’s life, not to mention Richard Nixon’s life. It never strays away from its key event. There are no concert scenes. There’s not much of Elvis’s discography playing in the background. It picks a place in time and refuses to stray away from it. This leads me to some compliments regarding the film. It flies by. Not only because it has a short runtime, but so much fun is packed into said runtime. This film is based on truth, but even with that in mind, it does not mean it is a serious story. Sure, Elvis Presley appears to be motivated to tackle issues he finds to be serious, but the story itself is kind of light. It is literally about two people meeting. Of course, there is other stuff in between, but that is basically the gist.
That said, this also highlights a problem in the film. The film packs a decent amount of material in its short runtime, but I cannot say I was invested in all of it. Some of the threads in the story come off as a bit of an afterthought. It is not that they are boring or do not make sense. But they clearly play second fiddle to the main story. Though to be fair, it would probably be worse if the main story felt like the afterthought. That said, I do wish I were a little more invested in everything else surrounding the nucleus of the plot.
All the actors play their parts well, and despite him being a controversial name now, I even include Kevin Spacey as Richard Nixon in this sentiment. I thought of all the characters in the movie, Spacey’s take on Nixon may have been the biggest standout. He has a commanding voice and admirable presence. He brings a distinctive aura to every scene he is in. His performance definitely fits under a term that I have used previously in the Election Days series, Hollywoodized. There are definitely some exaggerative qualities to it on screen. But it does not change the fact that those qualities fit his character well.
As for Elvis Presley, I thought he was competently played by Michael Shannon. I think he does a good job with his material. Academy Award-worthy? Perhaps not. But he does a good job. While Shannon definitely evokes Presley’s often advertised charisma, I thought he was tamer than I would have expected. Granted, it is fair to say the tale behind this film itself is calm. There is a little more conversation, a little less action, so to speak.
Perhaps my favorite element of “Elvis & Nixon” has to do with Presley’s perspective upon entering the White House. We see the process to get Presley into the building and meet the President is rather complicated, as I imagine it would be for just about anyone else, I have not been to the White House to do such a thing myself. I have never even been to Washington, D.C. period. Crazily enough, I cannot say I ever really imagined what it would be like to meet a sitting U.S. President. But as I watched this movie, it clicked with me. Doing such a thing has to be one of the grandest of privileges. That is the feeling that this movie tends to project while it is set in the White House.
And on that note, perspective is something I think is not just nailed from the view of Presley, but also his fans. This movie has a scene where Elvis enters a room full of women and just about every one of them, whether they choose to display it excessively or not, lose their mind. In fact, we see men doing it too. The only person who we find not to be on the same page with all these people is President Nixon.
This movie has a beginning, middle, and end, like a lot of others do. This movie has a point a to b progression, like a lot of others do. But not every movie can do what “Elvis & Nixon” does because to some degree, it turns nothing into something. If this movie were not based on actual events, that is a description that would immediately come to mind for a movie like this. Again, one of the top goals as far as Nixon’s administration is concerned is to get a picture of the two titular characters, and even something as simple as that becomes complicated.
As someone who did not live in the time of Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon’s peaks in relevancy, I nevertheless can say I was fascinated by what this movie was trying to deliver. That said, I think people who lived during this time will appreciate this movie most because it does a good job at highlighting the prominence of both figures and establishing how mind-blowing it is that these two incredibly famous men ended up crossing paths. But even I, who was born towards the end of the 20th century, recognize the moment this meeting has on our culture. That said, I did not know that the photo behind this film is the most requested in the history of the National Archives. I am not sure how many history classes cover Elvis and Nixon meeting. It is definitely a notable moment in pop culture, but there is a reason why I did not learn about it in school. But this movie, unlike some others based on true events, feels less like a history lesson and more like a fun escape. I laughed quite a few times in this film, there are quite a few gags that are finely executed. If you are looking for something to watch, this movie will do the trick. Is it a masterpiece? No. But it is definitely a solid hour and a half.
In the end, “Elvis & Nixon” definitely has fun putting two notable people of their time in the same room, and results in a movie worth watching at least once. The subplot elements are almost distracting and feel like they are just there to fill an already short runtime, but I would issue a thumbs up to what we got in those 86 minutes including credits. I had a great time watching the movie. Overall, it is light and fluffy, but it does not mean it is not entertaining. The film is not Shakespeare, but definitely a fine time waster. I am going to give “Elvis & Nixon” a 7/10.
“Elvis & Nixon” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on Prime Video for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! I hope you all enjoyed this Election Days series! I have no idea what my next weekly series is going to be, but I do have a few in mind. If I think it is time to do another one, I will share it with you all. Until then, look forward to my reviews for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Elvis & Nixon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie associated with Elvis Presley? It can be one where someone plays him, maybe there is a good use of his discography, or one he has been in himself. Personally, I thought “Blade Runner 2049” had a couple memorable, albeit brief, moments featuring the musician through a hologram. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Anora” is written and directed by Sean Baker (Red Rocket, The Florida Project) and stars Mikey Madison (Better Things, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Mark Eydelshteyn (The Land of Sasha, Pravednik), Yura Borisov (AK-47, Guest from the Future), Karren Karagulian (Red Rocket, The Florida Project), Vache Tovmasyan (Lost & Found in Armenia, Golden School), and Aleksei Serebryakov (Nobody, McMafia). This film follows the relationship between an exotic dancer and the son of an oligarch. Once the son’s parents find out the two have married, they do what they can to declare it invalid.
We are reaching the end of the year, which as far I am concerned, means it is crunch time. There are so many movies coming out that I would like to see, or in cases like “Wicked,” kind of have to see to stay in the conversation. I have so many movies on my radar to the point where I do not know if I have the ability to watch all of them. I have several reviews on the to-do list, including this one. Of the films that are on the lineup, “Anora” is an utmost priority. The biggest reason is because the film won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Of the last five films that won the Palme d’Or, three were Best Picture nominees at the Oscars, and Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite” ended up winning the Academy’s coveted title for the year it was nominated. Additionally, I also glimpsed at one of the trailers for the movie and it was one of my favorite trailers I have seen this year. It promised a compelling story with an individualistic flair about two characters who I ultimately looked forward to seeing on screen.
But I was not prepared for what kind of movie this was going to be. I had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be good. I also had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be unique. I had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be an experiential event. But even as the movie unfolded, I was marveled by whatever the heck it was I was seeing. This movie has a pace to it that really should not work, but for whatever reason it does. There is a key scene in the second act that drags itself out so heavily and takes its time, but never once does a single moment of it feel wasted. Why? Because it contains characters that I care about, and even if some of them are not exactly role models, I am nevertheless in a trance as I find out what their next move is going to be.
The stars of this movie are Mikey Madison and Mark Eydelshteyn and whereas you might look at a lot of other movies and find couples to be matches made in Heaven, I’d argue these two are a match made in Hell. I do not mean that as a negative. If anything, these two have some of the best chemistry in an on-screen couple I have come across in recent memory. But as people, these two are not perfect, arguably on purpose. You have Ani (Madison), who works as a stripper in a club, and Vanya (Eydelshteyn), who stays at home playing video games all day. Granted, he and his family can afford it, so it could be worse. But he is a bit of a spoiled brat. But both actors play these imperfect people to a tee and watching them together is exciting. Every moment they are on screen together, I bought into their connection. Sometimes certain absurdities come up between them, but the movie maintains an atmosphere that makes you buy into said absurdities. Individually, I honestly think Mikey Madison is going to be up for several high caliber awards this season. There are still plenty of movies on the way, but if the Academy Awards were tomorrow, Madison might be my pick to win Best Actress.
Screenplay-wise, this film is one of the finest of the year. It contains great dialogue, even from the most minor of characters. I bought into every single character as they were presented on screen. This is a screenplay that at times is about the little things. You have the main dialogue, of course. But when that is not being brought to life, we see little quirks or trademarks come up for certain characters and I fell in love with some of them as they occurred. The script for this film has the style of a Coen Brothers movie like “The Big Lebowski” if it were directed by Quentin Tarantino. Honestly, there is a scene that in terms of pace and line delivery, I would have assumed was straight out of “Pulp Fiction.”
“Anora” is a near perfect film, but if I had to name any problems with it, that would be easy. This movie’s first two acts fire on all cylinders. I was engaged the entire time, and I was immersed into the story and its characters. But the third act, while still good, loses some steam for me. It is kind of like “Speed.” The film is fantastic and some of Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock’s best work, but the movie peaks at a certain point in act two. The rest of the movie is good, but not as hypnotic as it previously was. But never once did I feel bored or disengaged to the point where I wanted to leave.
I beg of you, watch “Anora” in a theater. Specifically, if you can, watch it in a crowded auditorium. If you are in New York or Los Angeles, part of me assumes this could be an easy task to accomplish depending on the time, but if you live somewhere else, take as many friends as you can. Ask friends of friends if they want to come. I am of the belief that every movie is better in the theater, and “Anora” is a testament to that. This is one of my favorite theatrical experiences I have had this year, partially because “Anora” just so happens to be one of the funniest movies I have watched this year. I am so happy to have been able to check it out in a nearly sold out screening. I was in an aisle seat and I was doing my best not to fall into said aisle sometimes.
In the end, “Anora” is fantastic! I know this is a rather vague review. But I am leaving it vague on purpose. Because other than seeing one trailer, I went into “Anora” blind. And I think that is the best way to experience this film. Because yes, I drew comparisons to films like “The Big Lebowski” and “Pulp Fiction,” but this is a unique movie with some of the most engaging storytelling I have come across in a long time. It is a great story that highlights class in addition to people doing what they can to get by. The movie almost drags towards the end. The third act is easily the weakest in my opinion. Maybe that’ll change with a rewatch. Who knows? But if you are looking for something original this awards season, “Anora” is worth checking out. It is also responsible for one of my favorite scenes of the year that in a lot of other movies would probably be half as long. But for whatever reason, it goes on for such a long time and I have no complaints about it. I am going to give “Anora” a 9/10.
“Anora” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My final Election Days review is coming up, and it is for “Elvis & Nixon.” The film is a lot of fun and I cannot wait to talk about it. As for new releases, stay tuned for my reviews for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Anora?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you really enjoyed but would also claim to be at its worst in the third act? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Apprentice” is directed by Ali Abbasi (Holy Spider, The Last of Us) and stars Sebastian Stan (Captain America: The First Avenger, The 355), Jeremy Strong (The Big Short, The Gentlemen), Maria Bakalova (Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3), and Martin Donovan (Insomnia, Tenet). This film follows a young Donald Trump in the 1970s and 80s and examines his career as a businessman.
I will be honest, I was extremely hesitant to watch and review this film. Part of it is because I do not typically want to dive into politics on Scene Before. Well, maybe except for this month with my Election Days reviews. By the way, go check out my thoughts on “The Campaign,” “W.“, and “On the Basis of Sex” if you want to see me talk about some slightly older films. I mean, they are not that old, they are from the 21st century. That said, I will remind everyone that it is November 2024, therefore it is the culmination of an election year in the United States. Marketing-wise, it would make sense to release a film of this nature around the latter half of the year. But as a viewer, I was also weary of checking it out because regardless of my political views, election season is already anxiety-inducing on its own. But of course, I thought this would be a good film to talk about given the time of year, really the time in society in general. For the record, I am going to do as best as I can to stray away from my personal views on Donald Trump as a politician.
That said, one thing I will note for people maybe looking to watch this movie, it is not about Trump’s political career. It instead contains itself to a time where he was more well known as a mogul, a New York personality. Also despite the title, this is not set in the 2000s or 2010s. I say this because, well, Trump hosted “The Apprentice” at the time. As slightly misleading as that title could come off, there is a reason why the movie has its namesake. For one thing, the film is about a younger Trump, and heavily explores the building blocks of his business, his love life, his family life. It sprinkles a lot into a two hour runtime but it is not a piece about Trump’s entire life. Since I was born in the late 1990s, I inevitably know Trump more as a politician as opposed to anything else. Having followed Trump through that realm in recent years, he has certain trademarks, words, and mannerisms that have become a part of his personality. Sometimes they are even used against him in a jokey manner. Sebastian Stan to my lack of surprise dives into some of these trademarks, and while the film is definitely somewhat grounded with its intimate camerawork, it also has a feel to it that is comparable to more comedic material in media.
To be real, Sebastian Stan is probably not going to win the Academy Award for his portrayal of Donald Trump, as much as some may be convinced “liberal Hollywood” will let him win out of spite of others. But I like his performance in “The Apprentice.” Like I said, some of Trump’s trademarks come up in the film, and I think Stan masters them without coming off as a cartoon. One thing I have noticed over the years about most of the Trump performances I have seen is that a lot of them come off as hyperbolic. But those performances traditionally tend to fall within a certain context. Maybe they’re on a variety show like “America’s Got Talent” or “Saturday Night Live.” They tend to work for what they are. But I was surprised to see Stan deliver on a much calmer interpretation of the well-known businessman. Regardless of how I feel about Trump as a person, seeing something like this is refreshing. Now having seen the performance in this movie, kind of like say Alec Baldwin’s portrayal in “Saturday Night Live,” I am sure that there is an audience that will look at this performance, perhaps even the screenplay behind it, and immediately find themselves turned off by it. To call this a pro-Trump film would be like calling “Deal or No Deal” a pro-banker game show. Am I surprised by this film’s leanings? Not really. But the fact is I found the film as a whole to be entertaining. It is well-paced, it is engaging, and I latched onto the characters.
What this film surprisingly reminds me of is the “Star Wars” movies. This could apply to a number of them, but perhaps the first that comes to mind is “Revenge of the Sith.” As I continued to watch the relationship between Trump and attorney Roy M. Cohn, their dynamic in this film showed similarities to that of Anakin Skywalker and Palpatine. In this case, Trump would be the Anakin and Cohn would be the Palpatine. After all, Cohn is a little older, a little wiser, and very much getting into Trump’s head throughout the film. The movie presents Cohn as a mentor figure to Trump, instilling him with all sorts of knowledge. Cohn even presents three rules to Trump: “always attack, never admit wrongdoing, and always claim victory.” This is a motto that the public has seen Trump live up to in recent years especially regarding his political career.
I also love the overall aesthetic of this film. It is practically a symbol of Trump as he builds himself. If this were set years down the road, maybe this movie would be presented as something that looks more professional, considering how he would have continued to establish and maintain his name. But this matches a story about a guy who is trying to live up to his family name while also assembling the building blocks behind a legacy of his own. Only he has not yet been able to make that happen. Trump may be one of the most prominent men in the world today, but like with anyone else, getting to that position takes time.
The film is sometimes shot and presented in such a claustrophobic manner. It puts in you the movie with its multitude of closeups, darker colors, grim lighting, and sometimes vlog-like style. The more I look at this movie, it reminds me of those home videos shot on older camcorders in say the 1990s or early 2000s if you gave the captured video a pinch of polish and a bigger budget.
In the end, “The Apprentice” fires on all cylinders. It is engaging, it is raw, surprisingly funny at times, and lets out the best from its solid cast. Sebastian Stan, to my surprise, was a decent pick for the lead role. “The Apprentice” is most definitely not for everyone. In fact, I not only say that thinking a certain group of people who like Trump will immediately be turned off by the film, but there is also some visual content that may be uncomfortable for some viewers regardless of your political leanings or thoughts on Trump himself. In hindsight, I can see why this movie did not make a ton of money. People often go to the movies to escape, and I do not know if “The Apprentice” would be one of those films that would allow people to do such a thing, especially at this time. But I also could see why certain people would find the film to be relevant. I cannot recommend this movie to everyone, and knowing the current landscape, it is hard to know how many minds in any direction will be changed once the film’s over. That said, I give the film a thumbs up. It has a compelling narrative, good direction, and fine acting. I am going to give “The Apprentice” a 7/10.
“The Apprentice” is now playing in select theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review, my next review on the lineup is going to be for a film that is getting a lot of conversation right now, and that is “Anora.” I cannot wait to talk about this flick. Look forward to that review coming soon. Also on the lineup, I have reviews on the way for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” and “Y2K.” Also, my final Election Days review is hitting the blog next week, and it is for the movie “Elvis & Nixon.” I just watched the film earlier this week and I cannot wait to talk about it. If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Apprentice?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of Donald Trump… Tell me your honest thoughts on “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.” Personally, while it has its moments, it is a bit lazy in its structure, very much copying the recent success of its predecessor. Also, how you do get lost in New York? If you know numbers, you’re good as gold! Either way, if you have thoughts on “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York,” let me know those thoughts down below. Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time to continue Scene Before’s Election Days review series. Unusually, this review is being posted on a Monday! I intended this series to be updated weekly on Tuesdays, but to be frank, I have a commitment tomorrow. I am not sure if my schedule would allow me to finalize this post then, so I thought I would get it out today. Speaking of unusual, unlike the last two movies I reviewed, “The Campaign” and “W.“, this review regards a movie about someone whose seat is determined by elected officials, not necessarily by the people of the United States on Election Day. Today we are going to focus on the prominent Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Having joined the Court of Appeals in 1980 during the Jimmy Carter administration, not to mention appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 during Bill Clinton’s time as the U.S. President, she has maintained a reputation as a trailblazer. This film focuses on a time in her life before all that happened. Is the movie worth watching? I will share my thoughts below and you can find out for yourself.
“On the Basis of Sex” is directed by Mimi Leder (Deep Impact, Pay it Forward) and stars Felicity Jones (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, The Amazing Spider-Man 2), Armie Hammer (Cars 3, Nocturnal Animals), Justin Theroux (Mulholland Drive, The Girl on the Train), Sam Waterston (Law & Order, The Newsroom), and Kathy Bates (The Waterboy, Misery). This film is about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who must overcome various obstacles to help herself, her family, all the while trying to establish a career in a competitive, everchanging climate.
Despite coming out more than half a decade ago, I missed “On the Basis of Sex” when it came to theaters. After all, there were so many films coming out at the time that I could only get to a certain number of them. I was mainly focused on what insiders were projecting to be the major awards contenders at the time and “On the Basis of Sex” did not seem to be one of them. I was intrigued by the premise, but I had a bit on my plate. My motivations even caused me to miss “Bumblebee,” a blockbuster I was curious about at the time. By the way, I do not have a review for it, but it is a good movie! I eventually ended up buying a used copy of “On The Basis of Sex” on Blu-ray for $3.99, so I thought it would be worth checking out some time. And worth checking out, it is.
I knew “On the Basis of Sex” would be good, but I did not expect it to stand out the way it does sometimes. I want to quickly address the pacing of this movie. I am not surprised when I watch say an action movie or a comedy movie and find myself immersed in those environments to the point where time moves at supersonic speed while watching those. There was a point where I checked how far the movie was into its runtime and to my surprise, we were almost halfway through and I thought to myself, “Wow! I guess I’m really enjoying this!” It reminds me of when I watched “The Post.” It is shocking and delightful to know how immersed you can get in a story from time to time that is almost non stop talking.
“On the Basis of Sex” starts off on a high note. Perhaps literally. Partially because the song choice in the beginning perfectly sets the tone for the movie. It is loud and grabs your attention, kind of like the fight for equal rights this film often tends to highlight. But not only does the movie start well from an audio perspective, but the opening sequence set at Harvard is finely edited and shot. The movie starts off with this gigantic sea of men, therefore illustrating how there is a lack of women in Ginsburg’s position. The men are also all wearing suits and jackets. Each jacket looks almost like the other. They’re grey, they’re black. It is a limited and somewhat uninviting color palette. Then you look at Ginsburg in her light blue outfit. I am sure if she were wearing similar colors to the men surrounding her we could identify Ginsburg just fine. But her outfit, most notably due to its vibrant color choice, easily grabs your attention. I thought the costuming is top notch here, as it is for the remainder of the film.
Felicity Jones plays Ruth Bader Ginsburg in this film. Jones does a decent job portraying a rather commanding figure. When I think of RBG, I think of someone who is motivated, someone who takes charge. This is not her most notable lead role in the last decade, but I must say between this and the much more popular “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” Jones does a decent job playing strong women while also gracefully showing the weaknesses of said characters. When I watched “Rogue One,” I thought Jones did a good job at highlighting Jyn Erso’s uncertainty on screen. I remember when she was leading people into battle and I could feel her timidness, even though she was not showing it. In the case of RBG, I could tell Jones was showing more confidence this time around. After all, the movie shows she is still learning new things, but she is mature and certain as to what she wants. As to how to get it, that is occasionally the obstacle. At times, the obstacle exists just because of how other people see her.
The film dives into the sexism that women deal with, even today. We see a man telling RBG to smile more, change her tone. There is a moment where we see Ginsburg and her daughter walking through the street and some construction workers are catcalling them. We see Ginsburg, reservedly tell her daughter Jane, played by Cailee Spaeney, to just keep walking. But the daughter is not having it, she yells at them, signaling their actions are not okay, and then hitches a cab. This leaves her mother surprised and impressed, showing the progression of how women are opening up as to how they prefer to be treated. It is a memorable scene and does a good job at highlighting how far women’s rights have come generation after generation, even if it is shown through something as small as this.
The film also shows Ginsburg, despite being a star student in law school, struggling to find work. And while the job market can prove to be competitive in a number of contexts, for Ginsburg, she struggled to find work because of her identity. Multiple law firms turned her down because they did not want to hire a woman. We find out Ginsburg ends up taking a position as a professor at Rutgers Law School, which initially tends to bewilder her husband, Martin Ginsburg. Through the tone of the dialogue and various visual cues as Ruth reveals such news to her husband, it is emphasized that maybe this is not the outcome both sides were expecting. Even so, the two recognize the small victory. It is a decent scene showing the bumpy road that it is life. Once several doors close, another one may open that you were least expecting.
Despite how much I enjoyed “On the Basis of Sex,” it is not without its flaws. “Hollywoodized” is a term I have used on Scene Before in the past, and it fits here too. At times, this movie’s dramatization is rather obvious and almost distracting. While the movie is based on true events, there are certain moments during the showcasing of said events that feel like they would only exist in the context of a dramatized film.
Although if there is one thing that pipes itself up throughout the movie that really kept me interested, it is Mychael Danna’s score. Having watched lots of films over the years, I have had my fair share of scores I liked, but there are a certain amount that I would revisit on my own time. “On the Basis of Sex,” to my surprise, seems as if it could end up being one of those scores. Maybe I will eventually play it while writing my reviews.
As far as biopics go, I am not going to pretend “On the Basis of Sex” reinvents the wheel. There are moments where we see Ginsburg’s life play out that were beyond fascinating to learn about but the structure of the film does have a been there done that feel at times. If you can handle some predictability, cliches, and overdramatization every once in a while, you might like this movie.
In the end, “On the Basis of Sex” surprised me. I mean, I was not surprised the movie played out the way it did in parts. There is definitely a noticeable formula that I thought was met. But Felicity Jones carries this film as the lead. Although that does not mean there are no other standouts in the cast. Some include Armie Hammer, Kathy Bates, and even Cailee Spaeney as Ginsburg’s daughter, Jane. What did surprise me was how fast time flew as the movie progressed. I cannot say I felt bored or uninterested, so I have to give credit to the movie for keeping me awake. I am going to give “On the Basis of Sex” a 7/10.
“On the Basis of Sex” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, Digital, and VOD. As of this writing, the film is available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! I have one more review coming up next week in the ongoing Election Days series and it is going to be for the Amazon Studios film, “Elvis & Nixon.” I have not seen this film before. I just watched the trailer. It seems to promise a lot of fun. I figured after a couple of heavier films, and yes, I include “W.” as an example even though it has comedic elements, I thought it would be fun to maybe end with something on the lighter side. Stay tuned for that review. As for newer releases, stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” 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 “On the Basis of Sex?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you watched that you feel went by much faster than you were expecting it to? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Venom: The Last Dance” is directed by Kelly Marcel and this is her directorial debut. This film stars Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Mad Max: Fury Road), Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Lion King, Doctor Strange), Juno Temple (Fargo, Ted Lasso), Rhys Ifans (The Amazing Spider-Man, The King’s Man), Stephen Graham (Gangs of New York, Snatch), Peggy Lu (Always be My Maybe, Kung Pow: Enter the Fist), Clark Backo (The Changeling, Letterkenny), Alanna Ubach (Meet the Fockers, Legally Blonde), and Andy Serkis (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Black Panther). This film is the third installment in the “Venom” franchise and centers around the titular host and his human bud Eddie Brock as the they are on the run for the sake of survival and for the latter to clear his name.
If you are new to Scene Before, you would know I love comic book movies. I think the sub-genre has consistently entertained me for years, and in some cases, given me some of my favorite movies of all time like “The Suicide Squad” or “Avengers: Infinity War.” Those two movies are from different cinematic universes, specifically the Detective Comics Extended Universe and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while the “Venom” movies are also based on Marvel characters, they are not a part of the mainline MCU. Well, sort of. That is unless you count that one scene in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” But as far as the “Venom” movies go, they are under Sony’s Spider-Man Universe, which interestingly, barely has Spider-Man in it. This cinematic universe has been responsible for turds in the wind like “Morbius” and “Madame Web.” If I were to make a worst films of the 2020s list right now, I guarantee you both of those will end up in the top 5. But for some reason, the one successful property in this universe is “Venom,” which I find kind of sad. Not just because it is massively outperforming its partner films, leaving them in the dust. But because if you want me to be honest with you, I do not find these films to be that great. Sure, I liked the second “Venom” movie. I will admit “Let There be Carnage” has its moments. That film delivers some okay action, has a lot of laughs, and the pacing is tightly knit. But the first “Venom?” I could never watch that movie again. I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them.
As far as “Venom: The Last Dance” goes, I do not find the film to be the worst of the trilogy. But that does not mean the movie is good. The film starts off okay. One highlight in particular involves Venom and Eddie fighting a bunch of dudes in a warehouse. That part was entertaining and I really enjoyed some of the gore delivered in that sequence. I thought another highlight was seeing Venom and Eddie hang on the side of a plane thousands of feet in the air. But there is not really anything else worth writing home about. For the most part, the movie is slow. Considering the tight pace of the previous installment, slow is probably the last word I would want to use when describing “Venom: The Last Dance,” but here we are. As for the villain in this film, I honestly almost did not care at all. So I guess you could say that the Sony Spider-Man Universe seems to be taking some inspiration from the much more successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, but maybe not in the way one would want them to.
Even though I think this whole trilogy has been a loss, I think the one win throughout all three films, if you can call it, is the bond between Eddie and Venom. We see Tom Hardy doing an okay job as both characters. And Venom in particular has always been funny. As much as I hated the first movie in this trilogy, I still laugh thinking about the one scene where Venom calls Eddie a “p****” for not jumping from a building and instead taking an elevator to leave. The two continue to have decent chemistry in this third installment. Unfortunately I do not think they are as funny as they were before. But I think when it comes to the duo’s aspirations in this film, that part was nice to see. We find out that Venom wants to go see the Statue of Liberty, and seeing that motivation play out was kind of wholesome. Granted, we find out at the beginning of the film that is not the only reason these two are going to New York, but it is nice to know that this alien character has these humanistic desires. You can tell that these two have grown to care about each other. I just wish the screenplay was more compelling. It lacks an oomph. It lacks a direction. It lacks a substance that makes the film exciting.
Remember Mrs. Chen from the previous movies? Well guess what? She is back! I will admit, when I saw the trailers for this film and I watched her character in context of what was given to me through said trailers, I was curious about what she would do in this film. Honestly though, she does not add much to the plot, the progression of the story, anything. She is literally just there for the sake of being there. Although this time instead of seeing her behind the counter of a convenience store, she makes a trip out to Las Vegas to party it up. She has a penthouse suite, she’s dressed like a queen, the whole nine yards. While I admittedly found Peggy Lu to give a somewhat memorable performance in the film, you could almost take her out and have the outcome of the film barely change at all. Her appearance in this film barely serves the story, and ultimately comes off as a distraction if anything. What happens in Vegas should certainly stay out of “Venom: The Last Dance.”
In my review for “Venom: Let There be Carnage,” I mentioned I had one notable moment that could be described as a guilty pleasure from that movie. Particularly the moment where Eddie and Venom are arguing and the whole thing results in this hilarious fiasco where Venom throws out Eddie’s TV. This leads to another scene some time later where we see a brand new Sony television that was clearly intended to be there for product placement purposes. After all, these movies are from Sony, so they have to show off their products somehow. This trend appears to continue in “Venom: The Last Dance,” but the product placement is likely not as obvious as the last time. For those who do not know, Sony owns “Wheel of Fortune.” When Eddie gets to a casino in Las Vegas, he walks to a Wheel of Fortune slot machine, a common staple at these places, and sits down. The scene at said slot machine is rather short, but sweet. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It is a somewhat accurate representation of the thrill, and agony of gambling. You see Eddie mashing the button like he’s learning how to play “Mortal Kombat,” Venom is getting a sudden sensation he has never experienced before, he goes on saying this is the greatest feeling he’s ever had. But it does not take long for them to hit a low, particularly running out of money. Venom prompts Eddie to smash the machine in rage. The scene delivers some laughs, and as someone who has enjoyed his time at the slot machine, and occasionally questioned myself for sitting down at one in the first place, this is a good representation of what it is like to gamble sometimes.
By the way, if the hooligans at Foxwoods Resort in Connecticut are reading this, give me my freaking money back that you guys snatched from me in September, NOW.
That said, one minor detail, they likely customized the “Wheel of Fortune” slot machine for this movie, because I cannot recall one time I have played those machines, or any others for that matter, and saw an enormous “YOU LOSE” graphic on those machines. I know gambling can be cruel, but they’re not exactly arcade games. The game is never over on slot machines, it just stops at a point until someone keeps it going.
Speaking of minor details, one of my biggest laughs in the movie is the likely the result of me spending way too much time looking into details on passenger airplanes. Yes, like some other people, I have had growing worries about flying certain Boeing aircrafts. But even before planes like the 737 MAX became a hot topic of concern, I knew about some models thanks to YouTube. There is a moment in “Venom: The Last Dance” where Eddie explains to Venom that the two latched off the exterior of a Boeing 757. It takes a bit for Venom to chime in about this, but at one point he shouts, “It was an Airbus A320!” I am by no means an air geek or planespotter, but I do have an appreciation for air travel. I think the whole process behind it and the way it is managed is sometimes a scam, but either way, that particular line made me lose it when Venom said it. Plus the fact that Venom shouted it with such certainty made the execution of the line come off as admirable as possible.
But the more I think about this “Venom” trilogy, the more I think these movies are the kinds that Martin Scorsese would look at and go, “Hard pass.” And you know what? Now that I have sat through all three of these monstrosities, I would be right there with him. To use Scorsese’s words, and I may sound like a hypocrite because this goes against what I said about the pacing earlier, “Venom: The Last Dance” undoubtedly has the pace of a theme park ride. You may be wondering if I am high right now. Just moments ago I said this movie was slow. What kind of theme park ride are we talking about? Well, if we were to talk about faster theme park rides like a roller coaster, such a pace is most evident when we are with Eddie and Venom. Whenever their presence is absent, “Venom: The Last Dance” becomes a complete and total snoozefest. The main duo’s connection kind of saves the movie in the same way it has done so in the franchise’s predecessors. Everything involving Area 51 was boring. Some of the characters in those scenes were not as compelling as maybe they could have been. They felt flat. They felt wooden. If anything, these movies somewhat remind me of the reality TV genre. This is not a comparison to every show within the genre, but if you watch certain reality shows you will notice how hyped up the main cast tends to get sometimes. When I think of this Venom trilogy, I think of the titular character’s voice. I think about how loud that voice can get in select scenes to the point where it drowns out all the other characters. Granted, sometimes it is appealing, but it does not change the fact that this movie feels like noise for the sake of noise.
Also, with this being the third installment of a trilogy, the film tries to go out on a note of finality. Or as Hollywood puts it, “The end… Until we make a billion dollars.” Unfortunately, the note of finality this movie tends to provide feels tacked on. Never once did I get any emotion between these two characters. Part of it is because this property is far from the gold standard of comic book movies, therefore I never had any attachment to these films to begin with. While I thought the second film is good, I think the first one is ridiculous garbage, and at the time, the worst “Spider-Man”-related film I had seen. Then came “Morbius,” then came “Madame Web…” Oh my god. This goddamn timeline. Sony, get your act together! Because I have had it! Either get people who care about these characters, or give the rights to somebody else! I could tell Tom Hardy is probably having a blast making these movies, but I cannot say I am having the best time watching them. They are barely good enough to be eye candy. And it is not even good eye candy. It is like eye candy that is a bit past its expiration date! It can still be edible, but is it really? It is honestly not that good. When I look at Venom in this movie and the many symbiotic creatures we end up seeing, it reminds me of the “Star Wars” prequels in a sense because if you remember those movies in comparison to the original trilogy, you would notice a significantly higher presence of lightsabers, and therefore lightsaber fights. When you look at the original trilogy, lightsabers felt special and were always used to serve the story. In the prequels, the lightsaber use sometimes comes off as an excuse to put said objects on the screen like they are jangling keys. Do not get me wrong, sometimes I was hypnotized by those jangling keys, but still.
My point is, when I look at all the symbiotic creatures, it makes the character of Venom feel less like a one of a kind, and perhaps as commonplace as a Dunkin’ location in New England. Venom does not feel special in this movie. Granted, in the previous films, he faced off against other symbiotic beings, but the count of symbiotic beings in those movies were minimal. There was still a novelty to the concept. You could almost argue that there are some story purposes to the number of creatures in this film, considering this film is set in Area 51. This “Venom” film is definitely going bigger than the previous two installments. Though in contrary to the common saying, bigger does not mean better. In this case, the movie is so big that it leaves me wondering how many of these creatures are in the movie for the sole purpose of selling toys. In fact, there are a couple times in this movie where I was looking at numerous characters or shifts the symbiote itself makes and in my head I’m going, “There’s a toy.” “There’s another toy.” “There’s a toy.” “There’s a Hot Toy.” “There’s an action figure.” “There’s a Funko Pop.” When the trailers showed off the Venomized horse, I was intrigued by how delightfully weird such a concept could be. And when that was shown in the movie, I thought it was fun to watch on screen. But for the most part, I kept looking at the symbiotic creatures and thought the whole idea was overdone by the climax of the film. Now I may sound like a hypocrite, because looking back at say the MCU’s “Iron Man 3,” I was thrilled when the climax went down and all the Iron Man suits showed up. But that was on top of an already engaging film containing characters I cared about and a story that moved along at a decent pace. The finale for “Iron Man 3” was the cherry on top of a sundae whereas the finale for “Venom: The Last Dance” felt like a bunch of creatures I did not care about facing off a threat I did not care about.
Could I watch “Venom: The Last Dance” if I were drunk? That is a question I personally find to be a bit tough to answer, mainly because I do not drink. Maybe this is why I hate these movies. Because I refuse the booze. But in all seriousness, as I look at “Venom: The Last Dance,” this is a movie that would probably be best watched in a setting that includes alcohol. Heck, part of the movie takes place in Vegas! Now you get to watch a movie about a guy and his alien pal going to a place where poor decisions are highly encouraged while also making some poor decisions right from your own couch. Although if you ask me, watching “Venom: The Last Dance” is already enough of poor decision.
In the end, “Venom: The Last Dance” is one of the worst films of the year. The film starts off average and just gets worse as it goes. This is just the latest comic book movie to come out in 2024 that I found to be a waste of time. If it were not for “Deadpool & Wolverine,” every comic book movie that came out this year would have been a dud. Now, it is hard to top the injustice that is “Madame Web,” and thankfully, “Venom: The Last Dance” is an improvement from that schlock. Is “Venom: The Last Dance” as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux?” Surprisingly, no. These are words I did not think I would be saying months ago! For one thing, despite there being more cons than pros in “Venom: The Last Dance,” it does have some entertainment value. There are some funny lines here and there. There are one or two decent action sequences. But it is not enough to make a good movie. The palette of the film is somewhat depressing. The moments that try to trigger your emotions did not get to me. I did not care for a lot of the supporting characters. And to my surprise, the film sometimes moves at a snail’s pace.
I genuinely hope, against all odds, that come December, “Kraven the Hunter” is a good movie. Because I have no faith in it at this point. And why should I have any faith in it? Literally the only film in this Sony Spider-Man Universe that has worked for me so far is “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” The first “Venom” was terrible. “Morbius” sucked. “Madame Web” is one of the worst films I have ever seen. For those of you who have comic book movie fatigue, I cannot relate. We clearly live in different worlds. Again, unpopular opinion I guess, I liked every MCU film since “Endgame.” If the MCU did not exist, and Sony’s stinkers were all that were coming out, there is a chance I could be asking for more quality products, or maybe I would be fatigued. This is supposedly the end of Eddie and Venom’s journey together, but there are future plans for the ongoing Sony Spider-Man Universe. As much as I am peeved at Sony for the state of said universe, I do not envy their position right now. Their most successful property is concluding, and now they supposedly have the comic book movie equivalent of the Island of Misfit Toys to play with. Honestly, if “Kraven the Hunter” is a complete bust, I would not be shocked if Tom Holland never stops playing “Spider-Man.” You think Disney is going to make Hugh Jackman play Wolverine until he’s 90? Ha! Fat chance! Watch what Sony is going to make Tom Holland do with “Spider-Man” if their other projects continue to fail.
I mean… At least there is “Spider-Verse.” That seems to be kicking butt right now.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is the first film directed by Kelly Marcel, and should she continue to direct movies, I hope they are more successful than this. I wish her nothing but the best. But unfortunately, when it comes to comic book movies, “Venom: The Last Dance” is far from the best. I am going to give “Venom: The Last Dance” a 4/10.
“Venom: The Last Dance” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” and “A Real Pain.” Also coming soon, the next installment in my Election Days review series, I will be reviewing “On the Basis of Sex,” which is about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 “Venom: The Last Dance?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Venom” movie? For me, the answer is easily “Venom: Let There be Carnage.” But what about you? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the second review in my Election Days series! Today we are going to be talking about “W.,” starring Josh Brolin. The film is about the life of the controversial leader George W. Bush. It features a stacked cast and is helmed by a filmmaker whose respectable track record includes other films having to do with U.S. politicians such as “JFK.” Does this 2008 film earn a Texas-sized thumbs up? Or does “W.” take the L? Here are my thoughts…
“W.” is directed by Oliver Stone (World Trade Center, JFK) and stars Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men, American Gangster), Elizabeth Banks (Slither, Spider-Man), Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist, The Last Picture Show), James Cromwell (Babe, The Artist), Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws, American Graffiti), Scott Glenn (Urban Cowboy, The Right Stuff), Toby Jones (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Mist), Stacy Keach (American Greed, Titus), Bruce McGill (Collateral, MacGyver), Thandiwe Newton (Mission: Impossible II, ER), and Jeffrey Wright (Angels in America, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles). This film centers around the life of George W. Bush, the man who would become the 43rd President of the United States.
Like him or not, George W. Bush is an important U.S. President in my lifetime. Not because I agreed with his policies or because I liked him. Perhaps second to George Washington, maybe Abraham Lincoln, W. Bush is the earliest President I remember hearing about at some point in my life. Of course, with me being a child during the entirety of his two-term run, I did not immediately know the various aspects of his time in office that people talk about even today such as how he was President during the 9-11 attacks, No Child Left Behind, his response to Hurricane Katrina, his involvement in the Iraq War, and so on. The movie does not go deep into all of that, but it does not mean it is not a contained story. In fact, I would say I was surprised with how engaged I was with the film itself.
For the record, this is my second Oliver Stone film. I previously watched “Wall Street.” A film that I think does a really good job at capturing the hustle and bustle of the stock market and how much of a sport capitalism can be. So if you want me to compare this film to Stone’s other flicks involving U.S. Presidents, particularly “JFK” and “Nixon,” consider yourself disappointed. All I can say is that “W.” was better than I thought it would be. Though I really should not be surprised. It contains tons of great actors, moves at a brisk pace, and features several engaging characters.
The one thing I will say though about this movie, is that I wonder how people who do not know anything about George W. Bush, his family, or maybe live outside the U.S. would take this film. This movie came out in 2008. W. Bush was still in office at the time, making this is a topical picture during its release. I will let you be the judge as to whether 16 years is a long time, but that is how long it has been since this film has come out. There are people in high school right now who were born around the time Barack Obama first became President. I am not going to pretend I have the strongest opinions on W. Bush’s time in office because as I said before, he was President during my youth. During that time in my life, I was more concerned as to when would the next time I was going to Outback Steakhouse as opposed to the state of the economy. The film dives into the days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and I am sure even a number of younger people who may end up watching the movie today would probably have an opinion on it. But such a topic is probably not going to have the same impact on those who vividly remember living through that time in history. At times, this feels like a 2008 film that was specifically made for a 2008 audience. I am not insulting those audiences, just to be clear. Those same audiences also got to witness timeless cinema like “Wall-E” and “Slumdog Millionaire.” But would “W.” hit the same way for today’s generation? Hard to say.
That said, the film is still quite universal in its story. It dives into W. Bush’s relationship with his father, which I thought was one of the best parts of this movie. Even though W. Bush comes from a family with a storied legacy, his relationship with his father is something I think a lot of people can relate to. Because we all have parents, and deep down, most of us want to do anything that will keep us from breaking their hearts. The two have a steady connection, but it is not perfect. Nor is it without rules.
My favorite deep dive in the film has to do with George W. Bush’s relationship with alcohol. We see how much drinking impacts his life in terms of the choices he makes, how it affects his relationships with other people, and his overall stability. The movie tends to present alcohol as an obstacle that keeps W. Bush from potential success. We notice as W. Bush ages and becomes more accomplished, mainly in politics, he gives it up. The movie shows how much drinking holds W. Bush back and how him giving it up seems to correlate with his achievements.
As for the performance of George W. Bush (right) himself, I have to say Josh Brolin did a good job in the role. Never once did I feel Brolin was trying to do an impression of the character. He kind of made the performance his own. He was bold in his presence and consistently commanding from scene to scene. Is it the greatest performance of a U.S. President in film history? No it is not. But to be fair, it is hard to compare with Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead of “Lincoln,” a film that came out four years later. In fact, during the same year “W.” was released, audiences were also treated to “Frost/Nixon,” and I would argue Frank Langella did an even better job as the titular leader in that film.
The supporting cast in this film also manages to put their best foot forward. Elizabeth Banks is a standout as Laura Bush. Richard Dreyfuss does a good job as Dick Cheney. And I thought James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush (right) was excellent casting. Across the board, I cannot name a single performance in “W.” I did not like.
But I have to give props not only to Josh Brolin for having the presence one would expect of a flawed but charming leader, but also to the writer of this film, Stanley Weiser, for bringing some decent material to the screen. Unfortunately, it is not all perfect. Despite the film never once feeling boring, it is a tad bewildering at times. The film comes off like I am in history class, and we are doing a unit on the Bush era of politics, whether that is W.’s time or his father’s, maybe with a brief cameo from Jeb here and there. But the unit does not have a clear path. It kind of jumps from place to place and it is not that organized. I guess in a way you can call “W.” a nicely laid out mess. Because I understand the film and what was presented to me. The final product did not melt my brain. I am just not sure if maybe the specific non-linear route the story took was as compelling as it was trying to be.
In the end, “W.” is not a movie I intend to watch again within the next year, but it is one I can definitely see myself revisiting at some point in my life. Again, I am a bit of a novice when it comes to Oliver Stone. “W.” just happens to be a third film in his trilogy revolving around U.S. Presidents. Given how I enjoyed “W.,” it makes me want to go back at check out “JFK” and “Nixon” should the chance ever come up. Is this movie for everyone? Probably not. It is about a controversial leader, so therefore I would not expect it to be for everyone. But it has the hallmarks of a good movie. Decent storytelling, good acting, solid production, and while it is a bit jumbled, I did appreciate Oliver Stone’s vision and what he brought to the table. I am going to give “W.” a 7/10.
“W.” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on VOD. As of this writing, the film is available to stream on Peacock to all subscribers, and can be watched for free on Tubi, Philo, and the Roku Channel.
Thanks for reading this review! My next entry to the Election Days series is going to be for “On the Basis of Sex,” a film about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 “W.?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have a favorite Oliver Stone film? Which of his U.S. President movies would you say is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Megalopolis” is directed by Francis Ford Coppola (Dracula, The Godfather) and stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story), Giancarlo Esposito (The Mandalorian, Abigail), Nathalie Emmanuel (Furious 7, Game of Thrones), Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation, Dirty Grandpa), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Eagle Eye), Jon Voight (Reagan, Midnight Cowboy), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, John Wick: Chapter 2), Kathryn Hunter (Poor Things, Andor), and Dustin Hoffman (Lenny, Kramer vs. Kramer). This film is set in the city of New Rome, which is basically an alternate version of New York City. The story is about architect Cesar Catilina as he aspires to rebuild his city into a utopia, much to the opposition of New Rome’s mayor, Franklyn Cicero (Esposito).
Francis Ford Coppola’s resume is one to behold. If you go on the IMDb top 250, you will notice that several of his titles make the list. Heck, as of this writing, “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II” literally take up the #2 and #4 spots. “Apocalypse Now” is also at #56. Coppola has no doubt cemented his legacy in Hollywood as one of the icons. Heck, even though it is not talked about as much, I have to say that I really liked “The Outsiders.” It’s a solid movie inspired by a pretty good book. Kind of like Clint Eastwood, it is somewhat mind-blowing to know that Coppola is still making films at his age. “Megalopolis” has become something of a passion project for Coppola. He has been developing it off and on for many years. He’s talked with several actors for an opportunity to appear in the film. He’s even sold part of his winery so he could self-finance the film. But was this movie worth all that time and effort? As much as I champion Francis Ford Coppola for bringing the movie he wants to cinemas, I simply wish I liked it more. “Megalopolis” is not my least favorite movie of the year, but it is certainly one of the most boring.
I will be honest, I almost did not go see this movie, because I heard about the bad reviews this movie was getting some time before checking it out. And I had already dealt with the abomination against humanity that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” I did not know if I had it in me to sit down and dedicate time to this controversial flick. Unfortunately I hate myself enough to do just that. After two hours that honestly almost felt like two and a half, maybe three, I can say that this film is one of the most unmemorable I have seen all year. That honestly says something. I am sure a lot of people put effort into the films they are crafting. But in the case of “Megalopolis,” I already knew this was a labor of love from the start. Having seen this film come to life, I almost cannot see anyone else doing this film in the style that Coppola did. That said, I cannot say I found the style entirely appealing.
Now, this film is a feast for the naked eye. The lighting in this film offers a variety of color. This one shot of Adam Driver’s face that continues to be ingrained in my memory. From a production value standpoint, this film gets top marks. “Megalopolis” is kind of like, well, here comes another mention of that stinker… “Joker: Folie à Deux.” There is no doubt that the look of the film is worthy of praise. It goes without any debate that it is nicely shot, contains good costumes, and has marvelous set design. There are times where I feel the film gets a little too far-fetched in terms of how fantastical the look comes off. But there are others where I can buy what the film is selling and I like what I see.
The film is set in New Rome, which as I mentioned earlier is basically New York City with some minor changes. The structure is the same, it contains tons of tall buildings, there’s the Statue of Liberty. The Madison Square Garden even exists in this film, and I kind of like what this film has done with the place. In Ancient Rome, people flocked to the Colosseum for events like gladiator fights. And in a sense, MSG is basically a modernized version of the Colosseum. This movie tends to present a stadium with the old school glory of the Colosseum with the modern day wonder of the Madison Square Garden people still flock to today. A good portion of the movie is spent there, and while there are some clips set within the arena which contain select editing choices I honestly found to be mind-numbing, I think the film nails the atmosphere of that venue to make it as Colosseum-like as possible while still factoring in what makes it what it is today. There is very much a blend of old meets new throughout the execution of such an iconic venue.
“Megalopolis” as a film somewhat reminds me of “The Boy and the Heron,” made by another visionary director, Hayao Miyazaki. For the record, I think that film is significantly better than this one. But I say this because I thought the best part of that film is its world-building. That said, the story and characters appear to play second fiddle in comparison. While “Megalopolis” contains a decent cast, most of the characters are missing a spark of some kind. In fact, I would almost argue none of the performances are really that great. There are definitely some that are okay. But some are over the top while others are forgettable. Adam Driver seems to try his best, but it is no “Marriage Story.” If you want a better outing from Aubrey Plaza, go see “My Old Ass.” As great as Laurence Fishburne’s voice is, seeing him in this movie makes me think I would rather be watching “The Matrix” right now. If anything, even though New Rome is a city and not a person, I would almost argue it is a character of its own and is more interesting than any of the people in this film. Then again, that is not saying much.
Although if I had to name one character I surprisingly enjoyed on screen it would be Vesta Sweetwater (top), played by Grace VanderWaal, and if you somehow remember that name from almost a decade ago, then you probably watched season 11 of “America’s Got Talent.” VanderWaal plays a pop star who the film establishes to maintain her purity and remain a virgin until marriage. It is a whole thing. But I thought VanderWaal carried an incredible screen presence whenever she played this character. When she came on screen, she commanded my attention. While her screen time was brief, it made for one of the film’s few highlights, and that says a lot considering I wanted The Clairvoyants to win “AGT” the year she was on by a clear mile. Just one moron’s opinion. That said, VanderWaal is great here. She plays her part well.
In the end, “Megalopolis” is one of those movies that the more I look at it, the more I am transfixed with the images on screen, but not so much the substance within them. When I walked out of “Megalopolis” I started to forget about the film’s context, story, and characters, but there is one thought that stuck in my mind. This could be a decent tech demo. It is colorful, bright, and offers a lot of detail frame by frame. I could clearly tell that Francis Ford Coppola put his heart and soul into this project, but sadly it is kind of a mess. It also comes off as rather pretentious and overly cartoony, which is not the finest combination. Is it the worst film of the year? No. In fact, threepeat alert! It is not as bad as “Joker: Folie à Deux!” So… Yay? I am going to give “Megalopolis” a 4/10.
“Megalopolis” is now playing in select theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance,” “The Apprentice,” “Anora,” “Here,” and “Gladiator II.” If you want to see my reviews for these films and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Megalopolis?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Francis Ford Coppola film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is November and it is finally time for another monthly review series. Welcome to Election Days! Speaking of which, today is November 5th, or as the U.S. knows it, Election Day. I try not to talk about politics on Scene Before, sometimes if I am talking about a political movie, such a thing is unavoidable. But all month long, I will be discussing movies that center around U.S. politics, and we are going to start this review series by talking about the 2012 comedy, “The Campaign.” This is my second time watching the film. I checked it out once a couple years ago. So, here is my second impression of the movie.
“The Campaign” is directed by Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Dinner for Schmucks) and stars Will Ferrell (Megamind, Step Brothers) and Zach Galifianakis as two candidates running for a seat in the 14th Congressional District in North Carolina.
(L-r) ZACH GALIFIANAKIS as Marty Huggins and WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
As I mentioned in the intro, this is my second time watching “The Campaign,” that is unless you count other times I overheard the film in the background when it was airing on cable. That said, this is my second committed viewing of the film. Truth be told, when it comes to my first time watching “The Campaign,” I was not in love with the film by the end of it. Yes, it certainly has a good cast between Will Ferrell, Dan Aykroyd, John Lithgow, and even Thomas Middleditch. There’s no shortage of likable actors in the movie. But it does not change the fact that I have seen them do better things. That said, I thought some people were well placed in their respective roles. I thought everyone did okay with the material given to them. My biggest problem with the film though is perhaps also my biggest problem with “Killers of the Flower Moon,” particularly the protagonist. Having seen the movie a second time, I can confirm that problem continues to linger.
(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady, KATHERINE LaNASA as Rose Brady, MADISON WOLFE as Jessica Brady and RANDALL CUNNINGHAM as Cam Jr. in Warner Bros. Pictures comedy THE CAMPAIGN, a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
I do not need all my protagonists to be the same, but I found Will Ferrell’s character, Cam Brady, to be a bit of an egotist, kind of jerky sometimes, and somewhat hard to root for. My distaste for Brady does not have as much as to with his policies or political views in comparison to his personality. I am not in love with the way he presents himself. Granted, Will Ferrell has previously played Ron Burgundy in “Anchorman,” who is also kind of jerky and an egotist. However, I believe Burgundy crosses that line to where he is not exactly a butthead, but rather a lovable moron. Also, I found “Anchorman” to be much more quotable, much funnier. I barely remembered the dialogue from “The Campaign” once the movie was finished. Now that the movie is fresh in my mind, I can say that even after the second time, the film is still nowhere near as quotable as “Anchorman.” That said, there are a lot of decent comedy gags.
A couple of my favorite parts of the movie include one moment where we see Zach Galifianakis’ character, Marty Huggins, having dinner with his family, and they all confess personal sins or mishaps to which they have connected themselves recently. And the further we get into the conversation, the crazier the sin. We hear confessions from Huggins’ wife, Mitzi (Sarah Baker), and their two boys. It was one of the funnier scenes of the movie. I want to know how much of it was improvised by the actors themselves or how much of it was written in advance, because a lot of what was revealed in this particular scene is pretty clever.
I think I would like this movie better if Cam Brady was not the main character. Again, I do not find him to be particularly likable. Honestly, I found myself more interested in the story behind Marty Huggins, an everyday North Carolinian who does tours of his town. Sure, the movie sort of stereotypes the character and basically makes him a live-action Ned Flanders to an overwhelming degree, but I thought the character was charming. But I also think this kind of gets into the nitty gritty of general politics where something as simple as getting to power becomes a competition where people have no choice but to fight dirty. Sometimes an ego can help you make your way to the top. Sometimes people like that. There is a saying that nice guys finish last and that saying could perhaps apply to politics from time to time.
I am reviewing this movie during the U.S. election season of 2024, and one of the most prominent things I can say about the film is that there are parallels to said season. I do not want to highlight my political views, but Cam Brady as a character reminds me a bit of Donald Trump. They are not the same guy by any stretch of the imagination. But Trump seems to do well with males. There is a scene where we see Brady and crew watching a concept for a campaign ad and it paints Brady as a “REAL AMERICAN MAN,” and spends lots of time hyping up how his partner is a flexible, attractive cheerleader, and the ad shows her off like she is auditioning for Playboy. Unsurprisingly, that ad tested very well with men, but not so fantastically with women. Without spoiling anything, Brady relationship with said partner sort of reminds me of what some people speculate about Trump’s current relationship with his wife, Melania. Specifically as to whether Melania genuinely loves her husband as opposed to being by his side for an unrelated reason. But you could also say this movie does a good job at drawing parallels to typical behavior we see in politics nowadays, more than what we are just seeing in this election season. Whether it is putting words in other people’s mouths, finger-pointing, politicians pretending to be more interested in a subject or topic than perhaps they actually are. The movie shows how much the opponents try to one up each other to the point where they will be okay with issuing the most public of humiliations. The rivalry comes off like “Impractical Jokers” if instead of it being between a group of friends, it is between two enemies who have no chance of making up and making out at the end of the day.
Also, Joe Gatto, I miss you… If you want to come back, please do. You’re an icon.
(L-r) JOHN LITHGOW as Glenn Motch and DAN AYKROYD as Wade Motch in Warner Bros. Pictures comedy THE CAMPAIGN, a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
One particular highlight of the movie for me, or more accurately, two highlights, are John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd as Glenn and Wade Motch. These men are a couple of money-hungry brothers who end up playing a role in the race between the two candidates. From a casting perspective, I think both actors are well placed and they do a great job with their material. I also want to know if it was on purpose that whoever cast these two or the director wanted the two brothers to look like real-life variants of Statler and Waldorf from “The Muppets.” I mean look at them! The resemblance is there! They also have some of the better lines in the film. There is one exchange towards the final minutes of the runtime that got a good laugh out of me. As I said, this is not the funniest movie I have ever seen, but when it sticks the landing, it does so very well.
This movie also features its fair share of news reports. Most of the time when news reports come up in movies, they do not really add that much to the film other than an instance of exposition or drama. But in the case of “The Campaign,” this film delivers perhaps one of the funnier anchor reads I have come across in the history of cinema, particularly from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.
“This is likely to hurt him (Brady) with the Christian right, social conservatives. Really any group that opposes baby-punching.” -Chris Matthews
And yes, this is one of those major incidents we see come up in connection to our main protagonist. He accidentally punches a baby. This happens during the first half of the film, but it is not how it starts. I kind of wonder how much more I would have enjoyed the film had this particular incident been the first controversy the protagonist had to deal with. We see him in the first few minutes with his team dealing with the aftermath of sending a lewd voicemail to a family and it honestly just made him look like an imbecile. If we supposedly start with Brady punching the baby, it could have humanized him a bit more and maybe given me a more positive first impression. I get that this film is satirical, and therefore occasionally far-fetched, but I believe that there are moments of the film where the line is crossed a tad too far.
(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady and JASON SUDEIKIS as Mitch in Warner Bros. Pictures comedy THE CAMPAIGN, a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
In the end, “The Campaign” is not going to get a lot of repeat viewings from me. It is not the best movie I have ever seen by any stretch of the imagination. And at times, it is rather predictable. But it is also perhaps more than meets the eye. Maybe if I revisit this movie in 2028 I will feel different about it, but if I can find some parallels between this movie’s script and the 2024 presidential race, then maybe this movie is aging just fine and could be something more than a middle of the road comedy. But unfortunately that is also what this movie is. A middle of the road comedy. It definitely has laughs. But I also have seen much funnier movies, especially from both Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis. I did not hate myself after watching “The Campaign,” but it could be better. I am going to give “The Campaign” a 6/10.
“The Campaign” is now available on DVD and Blu-ray and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for more reviews in my ongoing Election Days series. My next “Election Days” review is going to be for “W.,” which stars Josh Brolin as former U.S. President George W. Bush. If you want to see this review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Campaign?” What did you think about it? Or, if they were to make another election race movie starring two comedians as opposing candidates, who would you like to see as the stars of that film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 