Austin Butler

Dune Part Two (2024): Long Live Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elvis (2022): A Movie So Bad That Not Only Was Tom Hanks Unable To Save It, He Sullied It

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Elvis” is directed by Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet, The Great Gatsby) and stars Austin Butler (Life Unexpected, Switched at Birth), Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away), Olivia DeJonge (The Visit, The Society), Helen Thomson (Bad Mothers, Stupid, Stupid Man), and Richard Roxborough (Moulin Rouge!, Mission: Impossible II). This film is a biopic on the iconic musician Elvis Presley. The movie providers glimmers of his childhood in addition to his life in music and movies. There is also a shining of light on Presley’s relationship with his manager, Tom Parker.

I was looking forward to “Elvis” ever since I saw the trailer. It looked electric, zazzy, and colorful. I also will admit that I enjoy listening to Elvis Presley every once in a while as “Suspicious Minds” is sometimes a notable song choice of mine when I am writing. I am not a hardcore Elvis fanatic, but I was quite curious to get to know more about the iconic musician’s life and perhaps see a killer performance from Austin Butler. While Butler has had plenty of acting experience, this is undoubtedly the role that will make him a star, and not just because he’s playing a star. This leads me to my most prominent positive of the film, which is that Austin Butler does not waste a second on the screen.

Similar to how Rami Malek practically transformed into Freddie Mercury in 2018’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” Austin Butler gives a performance for the ages. In fact one thing that I think Butler does better in his performance as Presley compared to Malek as Mercury is that we actually hear Butler sing. There are snippets of the movie where Presley’s actual voice can be heard, but unlike Malek in “Bohemian Rhapsody,” the singing sequences in “Elvis” were not completely lip synced. Butler also looks like a king in this film. Speaking of which, one notable element of Elvis Presley that I often think of is like some modern musicians like Megan Thee Stallion or Cardi B, there is some definite sex appeal that had been accurately reflected in the movie. Sometimes this comes with the idea that the sexualization goes too far. Young people, especially women, are seen in this movie losing their minds the moment they see Presley himself. I liked this aspect of the film, I thought it was perfectly showcased.

Butler gives a transformative, otherworldly portrayal of a musician who has not been alive since the 1970s, but somehow has risen from the dead just to stand in front me as I eat popcorn for two and a half hours. It is undoubtedly one of the best performances of the year. I think they made a good choice on casting Butler, not only because he’s a great actor, but unlike say Harry Styles, who was in the running to play the character, Butler is way less recognizable, which I think comes off as less of a distraction. This adds, again, more of a transformation factor than anything else. Although I was delighted to know that before “Elvis,” Butler’s most recent outing was in the insanely good “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” where he slays as Tex Watson. There is no denying it, Austin Butler was perfect in “Elvis.”

Too bad almost every other aspect of the movie pales in comparison.

Speaking of performances, let’s talk about Tom Hanks. Unlike Austin Butler, it is almost certain that most moviegoers would watch a movie just because Tom Hanks is in it. He is great in everything he does, except for “Elvis.” Tom Hanks plays Elvis Presley’s sleazy, gambling addict manager by the name of Tom Parker. Judging this performance is incredibly difficult. Because on one hand, Tom Hanks plays a much different role than I am used to seeing him in. This is a rare instance where Hanks actually plays an antagonist, so I appreciate that Hanks is trying to drift away from always being typecast as Mr. Nice Guy. But this is not only not Hanks’s bread and butter, he delivers a performance that feels weirdly over the top and stereotypical. Granted, it kind of matches the tone of the film, which almost feels animated at times. When I think of Elvis Presley, the artist, I think of lively, vibrant music that often lights up a room. Tom Hanks definitely feels animated. As for lively and vibrant, not so much. And that accent got on my nerves real fast…

Let’s put it this way, Tom Hanks has had a long and prestigious career as an actor to the point where he has done many great films like “Toy Story,” “Saving Mr. Banks,” and fairly recently, the somewhat overlooked “News of the World.” Of course he has had bad days at the office. Just look at “The Circle,” a movie that almost ruins the reputations of several iconic names in Hollywood like Emma Watson and Patton Oswalt. Even in a bad or fairly mediocre Tom Hanks movie like “Sully,” Hanks is never the problem. He gives it his all. “Elvis” is a rare instance that not only is the movie atrocious, but Tom Hanks gives one of the worst performances I have seen from him. I do not completely blame Hanks. I think in terms of makeup and costume design, his character looked transformative. Hanks himself, once again, sort of diverged from being a “nice guy” that not only audiences are used to seeing, but people claim him to actually be in real life. The directing and script are the real problem here. Tom Parker comes off as one of the most stereotypical and cliche characters of his kind in cinematic history.

It also feels weird knowing that this movie is called “Elvis” and yet it almost feels more like “The Tom Parker Chronicles” in disguise. I mean, sure, in a way, Parker was a monumental part of Elvis Presley’s legacy. But when I go into “Elvis,” I want, well, Elvis, taking up as much spotlight as he can. The movie IS about Elvis, but it almost does not feel that way at times. I am almost surprised we did not see Tom Parker in a mid-credits scene suddenly walk out on stage, bedazzled, singing a snippet of “Can’t Help Falling in Love.”

Here is a fun fact for you all, so far, the only movie in history to have not just been nominated, but win both an Oscar and a Razzie is the 1987 film “Wall Street.” Michael Douglas won an Oscar for Best Actor and Daryl Hannah won a Razzie for Worst Supporting Actress. This is a shot in the dark prediction, because awards season is technically still on the rise. Although I think there is a solid chance that “Elvis” could categorize itself as one of two films to win both the Oscar and the Razzie. I can see Austin Butler winning Best Actor, and I can see Tom Hanks winning Worst Supporting Actor. It goes to show how much of a mish mash “Elvis” feels like. This film comes off as a Saturday morning cartoon, a grounded drama, and unfortunately, a confused narrative. I think the confusion is best summed up in one of the first lines, where Tom Parker introduces himself.

“For those of you who are wondering who this fella here is, I am the legendary Colonel Tom Parker. I am the man who gave the world Elvis Presley. Without me, there would be no Elvis Presley. And yet, there are some who’d make me out to be the villain of this here story.” -Tom Parker

Yes, there are movies I like where the villain technically becomes the hero of the story. “Avengers: Infinity War,” despite having “Avengers” in the title, starts and ends with Thanos, the man who wants to rid of half the universe’s population. But not only did he feel fleshed out, I bought into the character. Similarly, there are movies about self-absorbed, entitled morons that make themselves out to be the hero, like “The Wolf of Wall Street,” and if it is written and directed in a certain way, it can work. “Elvis” honestly feels inconsistent, and part of it is because Parker needlessly steals the spotlight in every other scene. There are scene stealers, and then there are scene hijackers, like Tom Parker. Tom Parker comes off as a paper thin cartoon within a grounded story. It is kind of like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” if Roger Rabbit had actual human flesh.

I should not be surprised, but as I watched this movie, I failed to realize perhaps the greatest source of my pain, the director, Baz Luhrmann. Baz Luhrmann directed and co-wrote “Elvis.” This film definitely has a style, but despite its occasional ease on the eyes and ears, the movie travels at the speed of a rocket. Only thing is, I am not in the rocket, I am hanging right by the engine. It feels like I was watching “Run Lola Run” but if the runtime were doubled. This is probably the closest I have come to having a headache while watching a movie in a theater. Now, Baz Luhrmann did not direct “Run Lola Run.” He did direct other glitzy, glossy films like “Moulin Rouge!” and “The Great Gatsby.” I have not seen those movies. But I did see another film from Luhrmann, the 1997 “Romeo + Juliet.” I understand what the movie was going for by trying to modernize the classic Shakespearean play. Perhaps give it more of an oomph for people who tend to nap during class readings and discussions of William Shakespeare. But I genuinely thought it was one of the most annoying and mind-numbing movies I have ever watched. “Elvis” is more entertaining, but compared to “Romeo + Juliet,” it suffers from a longer runtime and pacing issues. “Elvis” is 2 hours and 39 minutes long, and yet it feels like an eternity at times.

Speaking of negativity and hate, let’s dive into another positive. Trust me, this makes sense. Like other modern musicians such as Kanye West, Taylor Swift, or Justin Bieber, Elvis definitely had his haters. While I was not a fan of the Tom Parker character and his portrayal from Tom Hanks, one thing I did like is how all out this movie went to showcasing the merchandising for Presley. They even sold “hate” merchandise which upon one’s purchase, the money from said purchase goes directly to Parker and Presley themselves. This is genius and I think if we lived in a non-Internet age, we could have seen more of this from other high profile names, including politicians. Unfortunately for the movie “Elvis,” the negatives outweigh the positives. Therefore, if I had to buy a button symbolizing my thoughts in regard to the movie, it would probably lean toward the “hater” route. Baz Luhrmann is a director who knows his style, but leaves much to be desired when it comes to delivering an entertaining narrative.

In the end, “The Tom Parker Chron–” sorry, got confused for a sec… In the end, “Elvis” is a long, overblown, glitz and glamour fest that melted my brain. It is sad to say that perhaps the most positive thing I can say about “Elvis” is that it is at least more watchable than “Romeo + Juliet.” But much like “Romeo + Juliet,” I cannot see myself ever watching “Elvis” again even if I were promised a million bucks. This is the movie that is going to be remembered as both Austin Butler’s big break, and yet, one of the worst days at the office for acting legend Tom Hanks. I am going to give “Elvis” a 3/10.

“Elvis” in now playing in theatres and is also available on HBO Max.

Thanks for reading this review! Speaking of music-based films, my next review is going to be for the brand new Japanese animation “Inu-Oh.” The film follows a dancer and a musician who develop a friendship and perform for crowds across the land. If you want to see 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?” What did you think about it? Or, have you seen any other Baz Luhrmann films? Tell me your thoughts on the ones you like or dislike. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019): There Lived an Actor and His Stunt Double

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is directed by Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, Titanic), Brad Pitt (World War Z, Allied), Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, The Wolf of Wall Street), Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild, Speed Racer), Margaret Qualley (The Leftovers, Death Note), Timothy Olyphant (Santa Clarita Diet, Live Free or Die Hard), Austin Butler (Switched at Birth, Arrow), Dakota Fanning (Coraline, The Twilight Saga: New Moon), Bruce Dern (The Hateful Eight, The ‘Burbs), and Al Pacino (Scent of a Woman, Heat). This film takes place in Hollywood around the time of the Manson murders during 1969. The story focuses on the dynamic duo of the characters played by Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick Dalton) and Brad Pitt (Cliff Booth). Dalton is an actor and Booth is Dalton’s stunt double. Together, they have a hunger for fame and fortune as the Golden Age of Hollywood comes to a close.

If you have been following this blog in recent weeks, you may have gotten the implication that I have just recently introduced myself to the masterful works of Quentin Tarantino, a director known for his quirky style, gritty scripts, and his enthusiasm to deliver a rather nostalgic vibe to his films. And this film is no exception. It is shot using 35mm film, it takes place in 1969, and it is designed to be presented as a love letter to ancient Hollywood. It has callbacks to real life Hollywood figures including Roman Polanski, Bruce Lee, James Stacy, and Sharon Tate. There are tons of throwback cars that can be seen that truly highlight the automobile culture of California that seems to continue to exist today. It kind of reminded me of “Amercian Graffiti” a little bit.

My excitement for this film was through the roof as soon as the tickets went on sale. I called my dad, he and I agreed to go on opening Thursday, I picked to go to the 7:30 show at the Somerville Theatre, which if you are not from Massachusetts, it is a 100 year old theatre that has a few screens, but one of them is in a grand auditorium that shows a lot of event-type films. I was there last year for the 70mm film festival, more specifically, for when they showed John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” It was my second time watching the film, and the atmosphere was turned up to an 11 when it came to how lively the crowd happened to be. I thought we were going to get a few people to show up for this film, because let’s face it, “The Lion King” is out right now, everyone’s going to see that, and unlike “The Thing,” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” was playing for more than one night. Plus, it didn’t have reserved or reclined seating. People seem to flock to those two things nowadays.

And I’ll let you in on a little something about “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.” It’s the single best movie experience I had this year. Yes, better than “Endgame.” The atmosphere was almost dead during “Endgame,” there are several moments in this movie where people would shout, yell, laugh, applaud, it felt like I went to the world premiere of a “Star Wars” film. It was the very definition of exhilerating! The theater might have been sold out, if not super close to being sold out. I got to chat to a guy in the row in front of me about Tarantino films, there was a lovely lady I got to talk to about his work and other people’s films. This was clearly going to be an experience to remember. OK… maybe this has to do with the atmosphere of the film. But how was the movie you ask? F*cking nuts! It’s a special kind of awesome! I mean, could you expect anything less from Tarantino? This is the fourth movie I have seen from him, and this is probably my 2nd favorite. This film is full of excellent scenes with great characters, lines of dialogue that made me laugh and cheer, and fantastic setpieces.

For those of you who don’t know, part of the production of this movie involved transforming Hollywood as if it were presented in the 1960s, and I think the movie did a really good job with it. All of the neon lights shining everywhere and the plethora of signs set the mood, I dug the driving scenes that really had that flair of fun attached to it, and I felt immersed into the world that happened to be presented almost to the point that I imagined myself as a part of it, and I think from watching “Pulp Fiction” and this film, that is something that I think Tarantino can do very well. And this may be a big reason why I enjoyed this film so much. No matter what movie I have seen from Tarantino so far, the appropriate vibe is automatically set. But I feel that Tarantino, from what I have seen so far, has done a better job with his films when they are slightly more grounded in reality. Even though I saw “The Hateful Eight” and there can be a definite argument that that film grounds itself in reality a little bit, it doesn’t really have characters that I can latch onto. The characters in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” feel raw, they feel like people I would probably run into at one point in my life. Maybe I’m biased since this takes place in Hollywood and I am an aspiring filmmaker and I can picture myself working with people who are similar in some ways to these characters, but my case still stands. “The Hateful Eight” has characters that at times are interesting, but for one reason or another, I just can’t relate to all of them.

And this is why I really enjoyed the main characters of the film, Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth. The two legitimately feel like a best friend pair, and seeing a number of scenes with the two together happened to be entertaining. Whether they were working or hanging out, they just made the movie worth watching. If I had to be honest, when it comes to acting, it’s almost difficult declaring whether DiCaprio or Pitt had the better performance because for one thing they’re both great actors. Not to mention, when you put the two together, they have the perfect recipe for a friendship. Plus, it kind of makes sense since in the movie Booth has to emulate Dalton in productions together, so in a way they have to act like they’re the same person. I’m not saying they are in real life. Both have their individual characteristics and storylines and they hypnotized me. I’ll also point out that the proper execution and quirkiness of said storylines are part of why I would want to go see this in the theater a second time.

And you want to know the best part about this movie? I can’t speak for everybody, but pretty much the entire theater, and this is a lot of people, happened to be dying laughing. This is why I enjoy going to movies with crowds, not to mention in cities (which I did technically for this film) because recent experiences have shown that my urban movie experiences (mainly during early access screenings) have usually gotten better reactions than ones I’d traditionally experience elsewhere. It felt like I was part of the worldwide Tarantino cult, they just accepted me after introducing me to their rituals, and we all came together for an experience of a lifetime.

As for myself, I am kind of in an unfortunate position because I have been exposed to tons of content, and as much as I enjoy watching certain comedies, I often feel like I have “seen it all” or seen enough to know what to expect. Here, I was laughing through a number of scenes, I was appreciating a lot of the dialogue that has been uttered, and it never felt like the movie lost its groove. It was one interesting moment after another. And this all builds up to the big. F*cking. Climax of a lifetime! It is quite literally a Tarantinogasm of super f*cked-up awesomeness on a stick! Is it the best climax or ending in movie history? No, it’s not, but it is by far one of the wildest. I cannot recall the last time, or at least the last recent time, that I laughed as hard as I did during this climax with all the s*it that was going down. I cannot go into it, but the climax alone is worth the price of admission, everything else feels like an appetizer. I, like pretty much everyone else in the world, saw “Avengers: Endgame” this year, and I thought the climax to that, especially as a geek, was fantastic. This ending, to me, wasn’t fantastic. It was bloody phenomenal!

And by the way, speaking of movies I saw this year, one of my other highlights happens to be “John Wick: Chapter 3.” That franchise, as you may know, has a lot of emphasis put on dogs, and the most recent installment manages to continue highlighting their importance to everything that’s going on. In my review for that film, I said it had my favorite dog-related scene of the year. That thought has since changed because “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” has a scene that I really cannot go into involving a dog. If you have seen the movie, you may know what I am talking about. It’s almost out of left field in the best possible way. Talking about it feels like a sin because it’s something I really want to do, but it feels wrong because, well in this case, spoilers could flood out of my mouth.

Just… See this movie, my gosh it’s f*cking ride.

I will say though…

The film is not perfect.

Yes, I have raved about this movie to death. Both in person and on here, but there is one single, solitary flaw that I have with the film.

And to my disappointment, it kind of involves Margot Robbie’s character of Sharon Tate, because despite how she may have cool scenes, and how she has a relation to one of the film’s characters who is mentioned by name, she almost had no real part in this movie, or at least one that contributes to the bigger picture of what is happening. And I will admit, it was sad to see her in this film after realizing she is watching the last film she will be alive to see herself in. But even with that, her character could have had more depth to her. She didn’t feel lifeless, Robbie portrayed the character very well, and she was charming. Kind of like how in “Suicide Squad,” the movie itself wasn’t the greatest, but Robbie did an excellent job portraying Harley Quinn. I’d probably have to watch the movie again to decide whether or not this storyline was necessary because there is a part of me that does think it is compelling and is a part of this old Hollywood love letter, but also begs to question how needed it really is.

Nevertheless, the movie is still an excitement bomb. It is still one of my favorite movies of the year, and I would INSTANTLY go back to the theater and watch this film again because I saw this film with my dad, we couldn’t stop talking about it on the way home, and he made an interesting comment. He was laughing so hard that he must have missed something. When your film is good enough to possibly allow that to happen, a repeat viewing is inevitable. Will I go back and see the film one more time? Hopefully, but only time will tell. And if I do, I will be really damn excited.

In the end, the hype is real for “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.” Tarantino once again presents himself as the cinematic mastermind he has always been made out to be. The film utilizes a lot of practical effects to turn Hollywood back fifty years, to say the acting is solid is an understatement, and there are several scenes I will be looking forward to viewing once I see this movie again, because it is absolutely phenomenal. And again, the Sharon Tate thing, I liked certain scenes she was in, but her character almost felt tacked on. I could grow in appreciation for her. After all she’s played by Margot Robbie, who is one of the most beautiful women working in film right now, so who knows? This is not to say she can’t act, because again, she was charming. And there are several films that I have seen this year that are funny. A couple of examples include “Long Shot” and “Fighting with My Family.” But when it comes to comedic timing and writing, this film is most likely going to be the absolute best we are going to get this year in terms of comedy. Between the awesome and brilliantly written final act, the investing opening scenes where we get to know our lovely main duo, and a gag involving dog food, there is so much to enjoy in this one film. I cannot wait to talk more about this film with other people and I cannot wait for this film to come out on Blu-ray. I’m going to give “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” a very high 9/10. I have a feeling, and it’s just a feeling for now, depending on replay value and how I feel about certain aspects of this film over time, this could increase to a 10. I’m not sure, but this was one of the best looking films of the year, one of the most well shot movies of the year, one of the most interestingly written scripts of the year despite my flak given to Sharon Tate, and one of the most compelling ensembles of the year. But seriously, Tarantino, you are a god and we do not deserve you. Thank you for this orgasmic movie! And if it means anything, I’m pretty sure this has to be the best “9” movie of the decade so far. So a score change may be possible, who knows?

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to let everyone know that next weekend is the release of the “Fast & Furious” spinoff, “Hobbs and Shaw.” I probably won’t see the film right away because I’m going out of state for a night, but I will likely make a commitment to get my ass in the theater at some point. It is a movie that I am looking forward to simply because it looks absurd for all the right reasons, so once I can see it, I will take that opportunity. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Do you have a Facebook? Check out my Facebook page! You can get all the latest info from your favorite movie reviewing moron regarding upcoming content, new posts, and more! I want to know, did you see “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Quentin Tarantino movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!