Biography

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many times, actually.

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

Oppenheimer (2023): A World-Defining Film for a World-Defining Time

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Oppenheimer” is directed by Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Tenet) and stars Cillian Murphy (Inception, Peaky Blinders), Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, Mary Poppins Returns), Matt Damon (Downsizing, We Bought a Zoo), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man, Chaplin), Florence Pugh (Black Widow, Don’t Worry Darling), Josh Hartnett (Cracked, Pearl Harbor), Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea, Gone Baby Gone), Rami Malek (No Time to Die, Bohemian Rhapsody), and Kenneth Branagh (Death on the Nile, Tenet). This film is about the adult life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a physicist who would play a major role in changing the course of both science and history.

Christopher Nolan is my favorite film director working today. I appreciate every single one of his films. “Interstellar” is my top film of the past decade, not to mention all time. “Inception” is a marvelous, trippy, dream-esque trip like no other. While they are not my favorite comic book movies, I think “The Dark Knight” trilogy is full of great action, characters, and performances. “Memento” is one of the better non-linear stories that comes to mind. I even liked “Tenet.” I have seen it four times in theaters. I do not know how many people can say that. While I call what I do critical, I will not deny that I am a Christopher Nolan fan. I look forward to every one of his films, including “Oppenheimer,” which I put amongst my most anticipated of the year. This film is a different angle for Nolan, who has created dark material, but he does so with a sense of joy sparkled in somewhere. For “Oppenheimer,” there is no joy. Only sour vibes. If you look at “Dunkirk,” which is set during a depressing time like World War II, the movie fails to earn a more mature R rating, instead of a PG-13, because there is a lack of blood and other things in it like excessive foul language. “Oppenheimer” is Nolan’s first R rated film since 2002’s “Insomnia,” a remake of a 1997 Norwegian film of the same name.

Safe to say, when it comes to the content of “Oppenheimer,” Nolan does not hold back compared to some of his other films. Much like “Dunkirk,” there is not much blood to be seen. There is not much violence either. However the film earns an R due to sexuality, nudity, and language. If you take out some of the sex or swearing, Nolan and crew probably could have earned a PG-13. Even with the sex and nudity, it honestly feels tame, especially when compared to another recent film, “Joy Ride.” There is nothing that comes off as super objectifying or over the top about it. In some ways, it feels everyday, but with some extra flair to it. Of all of the Christopher Nolan films, and this is not a diss on any of the others, this is some of his most lifelike work yet. Then again, having it be based on history definitely helps.

But overall, what did I think of the film? Well, as of now, I have seen “Oppenheimer” twice. That should tell you something you need to know by the end of this review.

In addition to being his most mature work yet, Christopher Nolan fires on all cylinders in “Oppenheimer” to tell a story that not only captivated me through showcasing history’s past, but also highlighting where we may be going. On the surface, “Oppenheimer” chronicles the life of a man who dedicated his life to his field, only to have his choices lead to monumental events. It is so much more.

For those who are often challenged when facing three hour films, I can tell you that this film is a heavy watch, but even with that in mind, those three hours are used brilliantly. There is a lot to see, and a lot to digest. Despite the long runtime, “Oppenheimer” is especially worth seeing in the theater. If you have a small bladder, plan wisely. Because if you are like me, you will enjoy much of what is in front of you.

“Oppenheimer” is told in a way that despite being non-linear, flows like a straight line. It is also told in a way that I think only someone resembling a Christopher Nolan-type could tell it. The film is heavy in flashbacks and storytelling shifts. The story may be called “Oppenheimer,” and it is ultimately a film about the titular character from start to finish. But it is not always told from his perspective.

Speaking of Oppenheimer, Cillian Murphy is gold throughout the picture as the title character. If the Oscars were tomorrow, he would be a serious contender for Best Actor. A lot of what makes Murphy pop is his subtleties. There are multiple signals throughout the film of what Oppenheimer was thinking, that may sometimes be highlighted by either something he says, or an expression on his face. In addition to Murphy’s mannerisms, he looks the part, and ultimately, feels the part.

Joining Murphy is a stacked cast whose talents know no bounds from Florence Pugh to Kenneth Branagh to Robert Downey Jr. in a bit of a departure from what he has been doing in recent years through his time in the MCU. I have seen users on social media say that Robert Downey Jr. is finally “acting” again. First off, he never stopped, he just played Iron Man so many times that it may feel like he is. Over the years he has done a great job as Tony Stark, and he also kills it here as Lewis Strauss. Like Murphy in his lead role, Downey Jr. is probably gonna be a frontrunner for Best Supporting Actor by the end of the year. But in all seriousness, look at this cast! Matt Damon! Emily Blunt! Rami Malek! That is not even the stretch of it! The cast is a murderer’s row of both star power and off the charts performances. It is like what “Amsterdam” was trying to be, even with an iconic, experienced director to back them up, but the difference here is the comparatively greater execution.

This film sort of reminds me of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” because “Oppenehimer” deals with weapons somewhat similarly to how “2001” deals with technology. Throughout history, mankind has had an obsession with tools. In a way, they made us stronger, they kept us alive, and in some ways, we refuse to live in a world without them. Technology and weapons continue to evolve, and therefore, there could be a breaking point. “Oppenheimer” begs to ask what happens if mankind not only gains enough power to destroy an entire group of people, but possibly themselves. When this film highlights the development of the bomb, there is a lot of talk about the weapon’s uncertainty. During its assembly, the chances of the bomb destroying the entire planet were near zero, but some would argue even that is too intimidating of a chance. When the bomb went off, it seemed like the weapon that made all others inferior. But like how there is always a bigger fish, there may also be a bigger weapon as time goes on.

I have seen a couple horror titles this year and I can say “Oppenheimer” is eerier than both titles. “Oppenheimer” may not come off as a horror movie at first sight, but it is certainly one by the end of it. Speaking of the end, to drive that point home, I will not say anything about what happens, but there is a final exchange in the film that I cannot stop thinking about. “Oppenheimer” is responsible for possibly the greatest last line in the history of film. It is up there with “Well, nobody’s perfect,” from “Some Like it Hot.” I am not going to give the line away, but it is a series of words that will stick with me, along with the hallowing shots that follow.

One of the reasons why Christopher Nolan is a favorite director of mine is that while his movies vary across the board, is that they are some of the most prominent examples of narratives that get me to think. “Interstellar” got me thinking about the earth’s future, in addition to my own. “Dunkirk” made me think that people are genuinely good at heart even in the worst of times. “Tenet…” Well, it certainly got me to think. Maybe think backwards sometimes. “Oppenheimer” is another one of those thinker kind of pictures, but it is making me think in ways where I am afraid that mankind may achieve a point of self-destruction. As a moviegoer, I often watch films for an escape from my problems. But not all films are created equal. Sometimes there is room, depending on the occasion, for a film that reminds you of your problems, or in this case, highlights problems that could haunt you for the rest of your life.

I was off and on as a history student in school, but there is a basic saying about history that justifies teaching even the darkest of tales. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. That saying is perhaps the backbone of “Oppenheimer,” no matter how you slice it. This film may tell the story of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and he is by all means the protagonist of this picture, but he is more of a notable presence than a “hero” in some ways. There are certain scenes where other characters may see him as such, but he is not entirely a proper fit for the description of “hero.” Understandably, “Oppenheimer” was not released in Japan. There is also no scheduled release there as of yet. That said, as I watched the film, there are moments where I got the notion that the film served as an occasional apology to the country. It is not necessarily in your face propaganda, but from start to finish, the film never comes off as an attack towards Japan or its people. If anything it comes off as a warning to anyone who desires mass destruction on a large group. And yes, that is all the while the movie highlights an event of mass destruction. But it says that if we get to a point in our history where we continue to fight, where we continue to destroy each other, we may ultimately destroy ourselves.

Again, “Oppenheimer” is a horror movie disguised as a three hour historical drama. If you think ghosts, ghouls, and goblins are the scariest things you will see this year, just wait until J. Robert Oppenheimer gives a speech to flag-wielding Americans in a gym. If I watch a new horror movie in theater around spooky season, there is a good chance that it will not leaved as haunted as I have the past two times I have watched “Oppenheimer.”

In the end, “Oppenheimer” is a hallowing time at the movies, but nevertheless a remarkable achievement of cinema. While I really liked “Tenet,” I think “Oppenheimer” is a step up from Christopher Nolan’s previous efforts. If anything, this may end up being a top 3 film of his for me. The film stands as a technical achievement that must be seen in a large format like IMAX. This is especially considering it was partially shot with IMAX film cameras by Hoyte Van Hoytema, who also used the camera to shoot three other Nolan titles and even Jordan Peele’s “Nope.” Additionally, it is a dramatic achievement that has been perfectly executed by its star-studded cast. Even with the haunting nature of this film, a good portion of the imagery is awe-inspiring, the music is captivating, and the sound is beautifully audible. That said, if I had a complaint with the film, the sound mix, despite the powerful audio and score, is not the greatest, which is not new for Christopher Nolan. Other than that, the movie stands as one of the director’s best. I am going to give “Oppenheimer” a 9/10.

“Oppenheimer” is now playing in theatres everywhere. The film is also available in select IMAX 70mm locations for a limited time. I had the grand opportunity to see it in one of those locations, and if you are thinking of taking the opportunity to see “Oppenheimer” in one of those locations, I highly endorse it. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I will be dropping reviews for “Haunted Mansion,” “The First Slam Dunk,” “Barbie,” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.” Stay tuned! Also, 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 “Oppenheimer?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the scariest non-horror title you have ever seen? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

BlackBerry (2023): A Perfect Cast and Thrilling Script Dial Up a Great Time

Posted on by Jack Drees

“BlackBerry” is directed by Matt Johnson (The Dirties, Nirvana the Band the Show), who also plays Doug in this film. Joining him are stars Jay Baruchel (How to Train Your Dragon, This Is the End), Glenn Howerton (A.P. Bio, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Rich Somner (Mad Men, The Devil Wears Prada), Michael Ironside (Highlander II: The Quickening, Superman: The Animated Series), Martin Donovan (Insomnia, Tenet), Michelle Giroux (Blood Pressure, Black Mirror), SungWon Cho (One Piece, Ranking of Kings), Mark Critch (This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Grand Seduction), Saul Rubinek (Warehouse 13, Frasier), and Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride, Robin Hood: Man in Tights). This film is about the rise and fall of the once popular smartphone, BlackBerry.

Nostalgia has been a primary factor into the marketing and execution of many films over the years. Look at how many major franchises there are right now trying to cater to people’s long-held memories. In fact, just this month, we are seeing the tenth installment to the “Fast & Furious” franchise and Disney’s live-action edition of “The Little Mermaid.” Whether we have a childhood connection with the franchise or we discovered it sometime back in the day, there is no doubt that both of these names are likely to thrive because of their recognition. Similarly, I have a bit of a childhood connection to BlackBerry. When I was in elementary and middle school, they were all the rage. Not in my demographic, but amongst adults. My mother had a couple BlackBerrys through her life, I knew teachers who had them, I came across ads for them, and I remember playing games and watching YouTube on my mom’s device when she did not need it. I remember the keyboard, some of the ringtones, the scrolly wheel. It was a nifty looking device, but looking back, it definitely feels bulky by today’s standards. I am still glad we have this film to take audiences back to a time that I almost forgot even existed. I am glad we have an excuse to start talking about this device once again and bring it back in a sense. If anything, this movie is doing for the titular phone what the “Guardians of the Galaxy” sequels have been doing for Microsoft’s Zune, except that was practically a failure from the getgo.

“BlackBerry” was a film that came out of nowhere for me. I have seen some of the marketing, but it is one that has not kept my attention compared to say some of the bigger blockbusters, partially because of how much money must have been spent on the campaign. But now that I saw the movie, I think I am going to help cheapen those marketing costs a tad. Because “BlackBerry” gives “John Wick: Chapter 4” competition for the best movie of 2023. There are some easy comparisons to make between “BlackBerry” and films like “The Social Network” and “The Founder” because of its tech connections or the company’s story of humble beginnings. But to me, what makes “BlackBerry” so great is the same reason behind movies like “The Disaster Artist,” and even more recently, “The Phantom of the Open” working so well for me. Because movies like these manage to find inklings of success in one’s failure.

Of course, unlike “The Room,” which “The Disaster Artist” highlights, the BlackBerry phone and brand were a success to begin with. Granted they had a tough beginning, but they also had a meteoric rise. This movie showcases how they were the phone to define the 2000s, and I believe they arguably had more relevancy at that time than the iPhone when it was announced. It did not take long for the latter to thwart BlackBerry off its throne, but still.

This film has an excellent cast including Jay Baruchel as Mike Lazaridis (left), one of the core people behind BlackBerry’s development. Joining him in a dynamic duo is Matt Johnson as Doug (center). More on him later. Michael Ironside kills a grit-filled supporting role as Purdy. Everyone in this movie is great. But if there is one individual that outshines them all, Glenn Howerton, who plays Jim Balsillie, not only gives the best performance in the movie, but one that has the potential to be my favorite of the year. Granted, it is only May.

If Glenn Howerton’s bone-chilling, jaw-dropping portrayal does not end up being my favorite of the year, I think it will end up being the most overlooked of the bunch. It is a marvel to the tenth degree. It is a fantastic blend of brilliant dialogue and hallowing physicality. Howerton’s presence alone is almost intimidating, and hearing him speak sometimes almost shivers me. To know that is possible with how down to earth this movie comes off, is incredible. The acting in this film is phenomenal, and Howerton is the cream of the crop of what is already a terrific ensemble.

The thing I enjoyed most about “BlackBerry” is that it not only shows the eventual lack of consumer interest BlackBerry earns because of competition, but also because of how the people making it were never on the same page. We see a group of people who disagree with how things should be done behind the scenes. One can call this a case of there being too many cooks in the kitchen, but it can also be said that it is a matter of those cooks not having the same values. Not only when it comes to how the product itself should be made, but the overall process of how the people making it should compose themselves. There is an obvious transition of the company’s doings throughout the film. Not only in terms of its growth, but how its people either grow or refuse to grow with it. It shows how one humble group can transform into a serious industry mainstay, and to do that might mean you have to take the fun out of your objective.

If I have one complaint about the film, I think the cinematography and the color palette are occasionally off-putting. The movie is kind of shaky and all over the place. One may argue that could add an induction of anxiety, which is a good way to describe this movie at times. But I also think the movie slightly lacks a cinematic feel because of this choice. This is likely a subjective preference, because when I think of certain TV shows I do not like, “The Office” often comes to mind because the camerawork, while definitely well-intentioned, is not my cup of tea. Maybe the overall look will work for some people, but for me, it is one of the weaker elements in an otherwise outstanding film.

“BlackBerry” is the cinematic lovechild of Matt Johnson. He co-wrote the film, he directed the film, and he even starred in it as Doug. By the way, he may be the most charismatic, endearing bundle of joy this film has. Johnson has some experience as someone who has worn multiple hats in this industry. But I think “BlackBerry” could be his big break depending on the box office and how well this film does at home. Much like I said about Ari Aster after seeing “Hereditary” a few years ago, I think if Matt Johnson announces his next project, I am there. While he may not have the style of Aster, he certainly has the substance and personality to back things up. I cannot wait to find out what Johnson does from here.

This is a film about sacrifice, greed, determination, and how one’s best efforts can unfortunately lead to one’s greatest failure. I love this movie, I think you should see this movie. And hopefully unlike the BlackBerry phone, it will never go out of style.

In the end, “BlackBerry” has achieved nerdvana. Of the past five months of movies, this one stands out. It is one of my favorite screenplays of the year. It is one of my favorite casts of the year. It is one of my favorite movies of the year. It is a surprisingly thrilling story with compelling characters that I had all sorts of feelings for. This movie works because it not only got me to side with the main characters, but it made me sympathize or occasionally side with anyone in the movie who would perhaps antagonize the main characters too. I know “The Little Mermaid” is going to clobber all the other movies at the box office this weekend. But if “The Little Mermaid” is sold out and you want to see something else, or if you want to drop your kids off at “The Little Mermaid” and see something else while you wait for their movie to finish, this may be your best option if it is playing in a theater near you. I am going to give “BlackBerry” a 9/10.

“BlackBerry” is now playing in theatres. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you like this review, check out some of my other ones! Recently I did reviews for films like “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” just to name a few. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “BlackBerry?” What did you think about it? Or, did you ever use a BlackBerry phone back in the day? Which model did you use? What are your thoughts on the product? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Post (2017): Streep and Hanks Spread the News and Define History in This Spielberg Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the third installment of this ongoing Steven Spielberg Month, where I will be reviewing four of the many movies Spielberg has created over the span of his career. Spielberg has created films with action like “Raiders of the Ark” and “Minority Report,” but today, we are doing a reverse Elvis Presley. A little less action, a little more conversation. That is because we are tackling one of Spielberg’s most recent outings, “The Post.” Nominated for two Oscars, this film was met with acclaim. Let us hope that the Movie Reviewing Moron will have something to say to add to this film’s endless stream of positivity. Here we go.

“The Post” is directed by Steven Spielberg (Lincoln, The BFG) and stars Meryl Streep (The Giver, The Iron Lady), Tom Hanks (Toy Story, Cast Away), Sarah Paulson (Studio 60 on Sunset Strip, Game Change), Bob Odenkirk (Breaking Bad, Nebraska), Tracy Letts (Lady Bird, Wiener-Dog), Bradley Whitford (The West Wing, The Handmaid’s Tale), Bruce Greenwood (Star Trek, Young Justice), and Matthew Rhys (Brothers & Sisters, The Americans). This film is about the first woman newspaper publisher and her editor as they uncover a history changing revelation that had been hidden for four presidencies.

I started Scene Before in 2016. Therefore, I have reviewed a lot of movies since then. Despite seeing previews, I have never gotten around to reviewing, or even watching, “The Post.” The film had a lot of potential from one of the most acclaimed actors and one of the most acclaimed actresses coming together to lead the picture. In addition, Steven Spielberg is behind the camera. Despite the potential, I skipped this film. I was excited to finally give it a watch at home since I had a used copy of the 4K Blu-ray on standby. Physical media forever.

Safe to say, the film is quite good. Streep and Hanks, unsurprisingly, make for a marvelous on-screen pair as Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee respectively. Cast members who are not quite at the level of top billing like Jesse Plemons and Will Denton also have moments to shine as well. Steven Spielberg delivers another win for his career on top of his many others. The screenplay, which was written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer is undoubtedly compelling. I should not be surprised that the screenplay is as solid as it is, as Singer has previous experience in writing excellent journalism-centered storytelling. In addition to “The Post,” Singer also wrote “Spotlight,” for which he won two Academy Awards, specifically Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. Having seen that film, I am not terribly shocked. I am also not terribly shocked that not long after those wins, Singer would once again utilize his creativity to effectively craft “The Post.”

Despite being a serious movie, it flies by. Honestly, despite being a couple hours, it felt like an hour and a half at times. It is that good. Pacing-wise, this is one of the better movies I have seen recently. Kind of like “The Post,” “Spotlight” came out as another one of these awards season darlings. I think both movies are equal in terms of entertainment value, a term I use lightly given both of these movies’ subject matters. Although as for which one I like better, I think it depends on where you look. “The Post” feels a bit more theatrical than “Spotlight.” Therefore, when it comes to technicality, that is one aspect where this movie dazzles. The costumes are rugged and transportive enough to make me feel like I am traveling back in time. A lot of the locations look extravagant and beautiful. To add to the antique touch, this movie was entirely shot on film, whereas “Spotlight” used the digital Arri Alexa XT.

Steven Spielberg is no stranger to starting off his movies with a compelling hook.

No pun intended.

In “Jaws,” you have the intro with the infamous music that continues to build whenever the shark is present. After that, you have that scene on the beach where the shark bites a girl in the water. Total intrigue. In “Jurassic Park,” the opening scene between the humans and the dinosaur shows off the menacing vibe these creatures can deliver. In “The Post,” we start off with soldiers fighting in Vietnam. I was not alive during the Vietnam War. In regards to history, I was still a baby when 9-11 happened. Although based on what I have learned in school, I know enough about the Vietnam War to recognize how significant and unfortunate it is from a U.S. perspective. I thought starting off here provided for an effective reminder of not only what the Vietnam War put a militaristic group through, but also what it did to the people of the country they were tasked with defending and honoring.

Now, this is not an action movie, it is not a war movie. War and politics are two defining traits within the story, but if you are looking for a war film in 2017, “Dunkirk” is probably your friend. That said, this one glimpse of action during the Vietnam War set the stage for what was to come. It took something so big to make something much smaller in scale appear more attractive.

This film dazzles from a technical perspective. Again, the costumes and locations look stunning. Speaking of stunning, the intricacies that go into how this movie was made are mind-boggling. The camerawork in this film occasionally felt so immersive that it highlighted some of the best direction of the year. The movie has a few long takes that felt perfectly planned and put me right in the room. There was a scene where I felt as if I was walking around the office of The Washington Post. It is like if Google Maps Street View theatrically transformed itself. Janusz Kaminski, a longtime collaborator with Steven Spielberg, worked on the cinematography for this film. While it was not nominated for an Academy Award, I think it is some of the finest of 2017 alongside Roger Deakins’s work in “Blade Runner 2049” and Hoyte van Hoytema’s craft in “Dunkirk.”

I often try to avoid politics on Scene Before. However, this is one of those cases where it must come into play. I say so because one of the notable aspects of “The Post” was its time of release. This film came out around the tail end of 2017, when Donald Trump was President of the United States. “The Post” almost comes as a tell as to whether history could repeat itself, because this movie reveals a lack of trust or full connection between the news and the government. At the same time, Donald Trump would consistently sideline or mock various news outlets and pick his favorites. This is an action he would continue to do even by the time he left office. If I saw this movie years ago, I would probably leave the theater thinking it is a relevant title and connect it to the importance of the 1st Amendment. This film has an ending that profiles such a thing beautifully.

Speaking of U.S. Presidents, Richard Nixon makes an appearance in this movie. There is a scene towards the end of the movie where we see a suited Nixon. We never see his face, it is almost like looking at The Banker from “Deal or No Deal” at times. Since this movie is based on true events, one touch that I thought was nice was the use of Nixon’s actual voice . The addition of Nixon’s real voice illustrated a specific scene’s point and perhaps delivered an emotional attachment that I would not have felt otherwise. Curzon Dobell is barely in the movie as Richard Nixon, but for the short time he is in it, he makes the performance a standout.

The story feels kind of Hollywoodized and some of the supporting characters do not stand out as much as others, but the film overall is worth a watch. The only other critique I can come up with is that this is one of John Williams’s lesser scores. The man is a genius, and his music during the movie works. But when it comes to his library, this is a score I am not going to remember as much as others.

In the end, “The Post” is a stellar look at how the United States changed journalism, and in turn, how journalism changed the United States. There is no surprise that a film like this could work. Coincidental or not, the timing of this story could not have been better. You have Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, and Steven Spielberg working together. On paper, this sounds like an absolute win. In execution, it is an absolute win. In other news, water is wet. While “Spotlight” may be a slightly better journalism-centered story, “The Post” is another example of how well journalism can be used as the centerpiece of a cinematic experience when given the right tools and context. If Josh Singer wants to do another movie about journalism I am there on day one. I think he is one of the best screenwriters working today. His work on the film with then newbie Liz Hannah, who would go on to co-write the funny political comedy, “Long Shot,” is superb. I am going to give “The Post” an 8/10.

Speaking of history, one thing I love about Steven Spielberg is his ability to successfully manage a couple feature-length directorial efforts in such short time. In 1993 he released both “Jurassic Park” and “Schindler’s List” within months of each other. Before making “The Post,” Spielberg directed one of my favorite films from him, “Ready Player One,” and he ended up shooting “The Post” while “Ready Player One” was in post-production. “Ready Player One” ended up coming out after “The Post,” but it goes to show that Spielberg is committed to his craft. When one door closes, another one opens. Sometimes he opens the other door back up after a while. There is a reason why I am doing a Steven Spielberg Month, and this is one of them. He is one of the best minds in the film industry today.

“The Post” is now available to rent or buy on VOD and is also available on DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray.

Thanks for reading this review! My next and final installment to Steven Spielberg Month is coming next Friday, October 28th, and it will be a review for Spielberg’s latest movie to have a wide release, “West Side Story!” I have seen the film twice and will watch it once more for review purposes. I am excited to finally talk about this movie given how I did see it in December 2021, but due to time constraints, I never got around to reviewing it. If you want to see my other reviews through Steven Spielberg Month, check out my thoughts on “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Post?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Spotlight?” Tell me your thoughts on that movie! Do you like “The Post” or “Spotlight” more? 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!

Belfast (2021): Kenneth Branagh’s Personal, Moving, Coming of Age Tale Slices Life Into Wonderfully Linked Pieces

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Belfast” is directed by Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Murder on the Orient Express) and stars Caitríona Balfe (Outlander, Ford v Ferrari), Judi Dench (Cats, Skyfall), Jamie Dornan (Fifty Shades of Grey, The Fall), Ciarán Hinds (The Woman in Black, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), Colin Morgan (Testament of Youth, Merlin), and Jude Hill. This film is a semi-real tale that encapsulates a portion of Kenneth Branagh’s life. Throughout the film we see a mix of Buddy’s somewhat carefree life as a child, a tale of growing up, while times are tough in the titular city.

One of the questions of the pandemic is what kinds of movies we are going to get in the future. After all, like the pre-pandemic days, we have seen that comic book movies, with a couple exceptions like “The New Mutants” and “The Suicide Squad,” have been financially successful, as much as the latter deserved a much better result. One of the movies I felt could be in danger with the increasingly common blockbuster dominating from one month to the next is those films that tell a slice of life tale. Films like “Roma” or “Chef,” which I watched for the first time recently and thought was phenomenal. Easily Jon Favreau’s best work.

So after watching blockbusters like “The Matrix Resurrections,” which I rolled my eyes over, and “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” which I adored, it felt somewhat refreshing to see something as small as “Belfast,” even though I ended up watching it in Dolby Cinema. I remember watching the trailer for this film a couple months back and it looked like a film that would make you want to explore the world. That’s an exaggeration if there was one, but between the black and white presentation, Kenneth Branagh’s name being attached, and some of the written dialogue that I have already heard, the film at minimum looked like a recipe for something special.

As far as my first impressions go, I would have to say that even though you cannot have a story without conflict, I will say that I am surprised that “Belfast” managed to immerse me in such conflict as well as it did. Granted, part of it is due to the Dolby Cinema experience being off the charts obnoxious and insane, but I would have to say that it also has to do with Kenneth Branagh’s impressive directorial skills that put you right in the center of whatever action is in the film, even though this really isn’t an action movie. Whenever there is a quickly paced scene, I felt like I was in the moment with these characters. There’s a rather explosive moment in the beginning of the film that stuck with me due to how both poignant it is and how effectively it establishes the timeframe, the atmosphere, the struggles our characters have to go through from day to day.

For the record, I am in my twenties, but there are days where I feel like a child, and that’s probably one of the few reasons why I think it is why to have Jude Hill’s character of Buddy be the center of this story. Seriously, there are times where I felt like I was looking at an eleven year old version of myself. Although probably less awkward, more confident, and more likely to get into trouble. You know how when you really like someone as a child, you think that’s going to be the person you want to marry later in life? The writing for “Belfast” feel weirdly nostalgic for my time just before I was a teenager. I did not do all the things the lead kid did at his age, I think I was a bit more of a “model child,” and arguably more than I should have been. I think at that time, I was way too concerned about following rules than trying to object to authority, but there are nevertheless things about my life as a child that applied to Buddy that I remember from that age.

Also, people often talk about hard it is to direct children, I think there is an argument to make that Kenneth Branagh makes it look easy. A lot of professional actors can give a great performance. In fact I would say that some of the adults in this film like Jamie Dornan do just that, but I will contend that Jude Hill (left) gives one of my all time favorite child performances in a film.

Ever.

Hill packs a punch in every scene he’s in. Whether it’s a lighter moment or a heavier, world-crushing segment that would be hard for a child to go through. I will not get into details that spoil the film, but I would put Hill’s performance amongst one of the greats. He’s up there with people like Mackenzie Foy in “Interstellar,” Macaulay Culkin in “Home Alone,” and Jacob Tremblay in “Room.”

I do not have a ton of problems with “Belfast,” other than maybe the fact that Jude Hill gives a better performance as a child that make the grown-up actors look inexperienced, but I feel like this film will lack the rewatchability factor for me. This is a film that I probably will pick up and watch again at some point, but similar to “The Last Duel,” which is a fantastic piece of art, it is hard for me to determine when I am going to sit down and watch “Belfast” from start to finish for my own amusement. I feel like it could get a rewatch one night when I have nothing better to do, but it’s hard to tell. As for other remarks, I do think the accents were a little hard to follow, but that’s probably more on me as a citizen of the United States being somewhat accustomed to my culture than anything else. That’s not something that really should affect the score of the film, but if you are not from the area this film is referencing, or if you live where I live in the world, I would recommend maybe putting on subtitles if you choose to watch this film at home.

I don’t often say this about a movie, you may notice that in some movies they’ll have a quick statement about someone who passed away once it ends, which is a great thing to do. But one of the best things about “Belfast” in general is its personal touch from Kenneth Branagh, this very much feels like a harkening back to his youth. Even if it is not about his youth specifically. And if I wanted to, I could make a film about my community from when I was young, but Branagh did such a great job at making his childhood, or at least some variant of it, feel, as weird as it is to say, universal and singular at the same time. The point is, when the film makes its dedication at the end, I won’t get into detail, but when it does this, I felt the words in front of me. I felt like I walked out having taken something from someone else’s life, which made me appreciate “Belfast” more.

In the end, “Belfast” is a home run for Kenneth Branagh. I have respect for the man as a professional and I think that has only increased after watching this film. This is a proper tale of sides not getting along, struggles of being in an environment where times are tough, and weirdly enough, as timely as this phrase is, feels like a film we need right now. Because this has every single emotion from joy to sadness to laughter, it’s everything you could want in a story. This is not my favorite movie of the year, but I will recommend it to just about anyone. I think this movie could do some damage at the Oscars this year. I’m going to give “Belfast” an 8/10.

“Belfast” is now playing in theaters and is also available to rent on premium VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the first 2022 film I’m going to tackle on Scene Before, “Jackass Forever.” This is honestly one of the more impromptu reviews I’ve done in this blog’s history, but I am looking forward to doing it nevertheless. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Moonfall,” so that’s two dumb fun movies in a row. Be sure to do a crossword in between or something so you can feel smart. 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 “Belfast?” What did you think about it? Or, have you been to Belfast? What’s it like there? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Tick, Tick…Boom! (2021): Andrew Garfield Booms the Roof Off in This Marvelous Netflix Original

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Tick, Tick…Boom!” is directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Hamilton, Mary Poppins Returns) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Amazing Spider-Man, Hacksaw Ridge), Alexandra Shipp (Aaliyah: The Princess of R&B, Straight Outta Compton), Robin de Jesús (The Boys in the Band, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), Joshua Henry, Judith Light (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Dallas), and Vanessa Hudgens (High School Musical, Powerless). This film is about Jonathan Larson, a young musical composer who lives in New York and is trying to make it big. When trying to assemble and sell his play, Larson must simultaneously balance work, friendships, and trying to create the art he wants people to see.

I feel like such an idiot because I have spent much of the 2010s hearing about “Hamilton,” while everyone talks about it, makes such a big deal about it. “Go watch ‘Hamilton!'” “Go listen to ‘Hamilton!'” “I cannot stop talking about ‘Hamilton!'” I have never bothered with it. I am sure that if I put on a song from “Hamilton,” I’ll find some fun in it. Heck, they even have the recorded version of it on Disney+ right now so it is at my fingertips. But I know that “Hamilton” is part of the reason why everyone knows Lin-Manuel Miranda as one of this generation’s most iconic entertainers. I am all for any story that makes history fun. I just haven’t gotten around to it.

I did however watch this year’s “In the Heights” film which I left feeling very mixed about. On one hand, there are some occasional catchy tunes and some of my favorite shots of the year. There’s one scene towards the end of the film that left me marveled to the floor. At the same time though, the film is rather dense for a somewhat fun musical and goes on for way too long. I did not mind any of the serious matters in it, I just don’t think it is a film that is worth watching more than once.

Either way, Lin-Manuel Miranda is an entertainer that I have known about for years, but for some reason, I have never gotten around to his work. To be fair, I watch a ton of movies. I don’t always seek out plays or Broadway musicals. Those just aren’t my thing. That seems to be Lin-Manuel Miranda’s forte. But this film is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s feature length debut. Could he take his talents which he used elsewhere and translate them to a project like this? After seeing this film, I can confirm he did.

Miranda develops a movie that sort of made me forget that I was watching a true story. Granted, I did not see a ton of marketing and did not hear much about the film going into it, so I didn’t really know I was watching a film based on actual events. But after realizing that this film was based on real events and watching the film itself, it nevertheless kind of felt like a fantasy. Almost like “Rocketman” in a way, but better. Miranda takes the script of “Tick, Tick…Boom!,” which is very much set in reality, and makes it feel like it set in some blend between that and some fantasy world. “Tick, Tick…Boom!” naturally delivers a compelling narrative that bridges the gap between true events and sequences that maybe one would wish could be true.

Part of this is due to the amazing performance by Andrew Garfield, who carries the movie on his two shoulders. I mean, casting-wise, I think they did a good job on picking Garfield because I don’t want to sound stereotypical, he looks like an artist. He’s down to earth, but also a little crazy. If anything, his interpretation of Jonathan Larson made him come off as a more artistic Steve Jobs, because Jobs was kind of eccentric, a little quirky, and I got that sense from Larson as well. I got the sense that he genuinely loves what he does and Garfield had solid chemistry with everyone on screen including his love interest, Alexandra Shipp as Susan. This film kind of reminded me of “La La Land” because that film’s about dreams and the effects that one can have from said dream taking up much of their lives. Will they be able to achieve it? That’s the eternal question. But there’s also the idea that relationships and connections you have in your life can separate you from having a life in which you desire. Same thing with money. There’s the struggle of being able to make it from day to day, and sometimes you think this may not be the best path. This film wonderfully complicates the struggles of one person achieving their dreams. In a world where “follow your dreams” is often the message of the story or the heartbeat that keeps the story alive, it’s nice to see a movie like this handle this main character desire so well.

I want to do my best to not spoil anything when it comes to “Tick, Tick…Boom!” but I sort of related to this film on a personal level. It’s not my favorite film of the year. In fact, after seeing something else, it’s not even my favorite musical film of the year. But I feel like the screenwriter, or Steven Levenson, either took some advice from a screenwriting class, or acknowledged a common saying that starting writers have to hear. I took a screenwriting class and one of the common things I heard in that class is to “write about what you know.” In fact, if you saw the trailer, you’d know those words are used in this film. The way that the film uses said words arguably makes for one of, if not my favorite line, of any movie I’ve seen this year. I think people will look at a film like “Tick, Tick…Boom!” and be wowed by it. Between the acting, the direction, and the music. It is all combined to make something special. But for me, some sequences are enhanced because I have personally dabbled, or am willing to continuously dabble in the arts. I’m an aspiring screenwriter, and one lesson I will always take from my screenwriting class in sophomore year of college is the advice to write about what you know. I won’t say much about the context of those words being used, but the use of them hit me because of what I’ve gone through in my life and what I may end up going through in the future depending on my career path. A good movie can entertain you. A great movie can entertain you and remind you of your own life. “Tick, Tick…Boom!” definitely comes off as great.

In the end, “Tick, Tick…Boom!” delivers a big boom and is a pleasantly enjoyable musical. Lin-Manuel Miranda delivers one of the best directorial efforts I’ve seen all year, one of the best casts I’ve seen all year, and one of my personal most relatable screenplays I’ve seen all year. I have never followed Lin-Manuel Miranda, nor have I followed Jonathan Larson. “Tick, Tick…Boom!” made me appreciate both of them. I’m going to give “Tick, Tick…Boom!” an 8/10!

“Tick, Tick…Boom!” premiered in select theaters this November, but it is also available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to let everyone know that I have more content coming up, which coincidentally, also involves Lin-Manuel Miranda, that being my review for “Encanto!” Stay tuned! Also, I want to wish everyone a happy new year. 2022 is around the corner, which means I will also have my picks for the top 10 best and worst movies of 2021 coming soon. If you want to see this and more on 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 “Tick…Tick…Boom!”? What did you think about it? Also, what is your favorite Netflix original of the year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

King Richard (2021): I See Venus. I See Serena. I See Will Smith in a Finely Crafted Tennis Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

King Richard (2021) - IMDb

“King Richard” is directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green (Monsters and Men, Top Boy) and stars Will Smith (Suicide Squad, Wild Wild West), Aunjanue Ellis (Girls Town, Lovecraft Country), Saniyya Sidney (The Passage, Hidden Figures), Demi Singleton (Godfather of Harlem, Goldie), Tony Goldwyn (Scandal, Ghost), and Jon Bernthal (The Punisher, Ford v Ferrari) in a film where we see the childhood lives of Venus and Serena Williams, two people who have become tennis professionals, through the eyes of their father, Richard.

Erin Cummings

Before we go any further, I want to give a shoutout to actress Erin Cummings, who has a small role in the film. I watch her almost every other time she appears on the YouTube series “The John Campea Show,” so I want to spread my support. I enjoyed seeing her in this film. I have nothing positive or negative to say about her performance, after all, she’s only around for a minute, but I just wanted to say, “go Erin!” Anyway, on with the review.

King Richard (2021) - IMDb

I saw this film at a press screening back in November and I was not surprised to be able to get a seat looking back, after all, this is a Warner Brothers film, and all of the Warner Brothers films to hit theaters in 2021 also made a simultaneous debut on HBO Max. I guess some people just wanted to skip this film to watch it at home. I’m sitting here as a critic trying to give you a good reason to go see this film immediately. Given how it is now off HBO Max, I might as well suggest why you should watch it in theaters… And compared to some other films out this year, I cannot come up with many. This is not a bad film by any means, but there are certain aspects about it that stand out more than others.

This is a rather oddball way to tell the story of two tennis icons. You might be thinking, oh my god! Serena and Venus Williams! I cannot wait to see how they became who they were! Sure, you get that. But keep in mind, the movie is not called “Serena and Venus.” It’s called “King Richard,” therefore it is about these girls’s father and it in a way tells the story through his eyes.

Now, I like a good father figure. I think we’ve seen a number of them in films from Uncle Ben in “Spider-Man” to Cooper in “Interstellar.” I think if anything, “King Richard” showcases how much its title character loves his children, but as I am watching this film, there are times where I just want to look the other way and I feel like he is doing something that nearly falls out of line. This is based on real people, so for all I know, this film could be referencing a ton of Richard’s mannerisms, but sometimes watching him speak or do something on screen felt nearly headache-inducing. Although I will say one thing about Will Smith, even though there were slight times that maybe I did not always like his character, I think given the material, Smith excels in terms of his performance. I felt every line of dialogue and I think Smith did an okay effort at bringing Richard Williams to life.

One of the things I did like about his character is that said character, not to mention this film in general, sort of represents the struggle that people of his kind, specifically black people trying to make it big in a white-dominated United States face. And the way this story is told sort of encapsulates that. There’s this one scene in a particular neighborhood that solidified that. In fact, if you watch the movie, and this exchange is in the trailer, all he wants for his daughters is to grow up and not be “on these streets.” I get where he’s coming from, and performance-wise, this was properly emoted.

At the same time, even if you took the aspect of underrepresented communities and the dangers of certain areas out of the equation, at the end of the day, one could look at this film as the story of a father who truly loves his daughters. He would do anything for them, but I also look at him and I feel like even though he is their parent, he almost comes off as controlling. I think a second viewing would be much needed at this point because for all I know, maybe I was in a certain mood that day and maybe he actually was justified from start to finish, but I feel like Smith put on an extreme performance for what seemed to be an equally extreme character. I could also kind of look at this film as what happens when you have nepotism come into play. Of course, you’re going to automatically think your kids are the best. My mother thinks I’m the best. But I KNOW I’m not. She’ll say it a thousand times over and over, doesn’t make it true. Those may just be words of encouragement as some sort of dream may be achieved in the process.

Now don’t get me wrong, just because Smith’s character does some occasional oddball things in this film, doesn’t mean I think it’s bad. Conceptually, it sounds fine. Part of me really enjoys tennis, and this film is about two of the most popular players in the sport’s recent history. I knew who they were, but I never knew about their childhood, I never knew about how they became so great at the sport itself. This movie was occasionally a fine history lesson.

When it comes to the two performers playing Venus and Serena, or Aunjanue Ellis and Demi Singleton, I think seeing these two together may have been the best part of the film. The duo felt like real sisters, and when their dad is in the mix, I think the best chops are executed out of all three of these guys. Seeing their relationship to me was one of the film’s major highlights.

Once again, I want to point out that this is based on true events, and as for the true events portion of this film towards the end, with this big tennis match, it’s some mighty intense stuff. If you enjoy tennis, or you don’t really know the stories of the Williams sisters, which I did not, I think you might get a kick out of the final act. Stay tuned.

King Richard (2021) - IMDb

In the end, “King Richard” is a film that I recommend to everyone who likes tennis, likes Will Smith, and wants an empowering story about two young girls. This is the kind of film I think some people will need for the most part. It’s about not giving up, not backing down, and giving it your all to be the very best. I think we all need that in some way. I’m going to give “King Richard” a 7/10.

“King Richard” has released in theaters this November. If it is playing near you, tickets are available.

Thanks for reading this review! I just want to let everyone know that the end of the year is coming up so this January I will be sharing my picks for the top 10 BEST and WORST movies of 2021. I cannot wait to share those picks. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “King Richard?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your personal favorite Will Smith movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mank (2020): Yeah, Mank Almost Stank…

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mank” is directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) and stars Gary Oldman (The Darkest Hour, The Dark Knight), Amanda Seyfried (Ted 2, First Reformed), Lily Collins (Mirror Mirror, Abduction), Arliss Howard (Medium, True Blood), Tom Pelphrey (Guiding Light, Iron Fist), Sam Troughton (Alien vs. Predator, Chernobyl), Ferdinand Kingsley (Victoria, Dracula Untold), Tuppence Middleton (Jupiter Ascending, Sense8), Tom Burke (Only God Forgives, The Musketeers), Joseph Cross (Running with Scissors, Big Little Lies), Jamie McShane (Sons of Anarchy, Bloodline), Tony Leonard Moore (Daredevil, Billions), Monika Gossman (Maximum Impact, Iron Sky), and Charles Dance (Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Game of Thrones). Holy CRAP that’s a lot of people! This film takes place in 1930s Hollywood as we see a manipulative and striking piece of history play out all the while screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz tries to finish the screenplay for “Citizen Kane.”

David Fincher - IMDb

I’m gonna let you guys in on a little truth I need to spit out. I have not seen any of David Fincher’s films. Not “Fight Club,” not “Gone Girl,” not even “Alien 3.” Therefore, “Mank” is officially taking my David Fincher virginity. I have seen a lot of the work from heavy hitters over the years. Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, and Guillermo Del Toro. David Fincher for whatever reason was just one of those names I continued to avoid. So, what are my thoughts on my first encounter with David Fincher’s work?

If you want the truth, “Mank” is marvelous to the naked eye. Granted, this is a less than traditional looking film for the modern age. It’s presented in black and white, there are several scenes that are presented back and forth in time, and to establish such time frames, the film gives you a screenplay perspective where it tells you whether the scene takes place inside or outside, where specifically the scene is located, and when. I think that is a nice quirk that I have not seen in any other film. The cinematography is breathtaking and if it were not for “Tenet,” it could arguably be top dog for the year. The film has this throwback feel and there’s some echo-like sounds you can hear from one moment to the next. Fincher directs the crap out of this thing and each scene feels like it could only be put together by a true craftsman. There are a diverse amount of appealing sets that enlightened me as a viewer and allowed me to keep my eyes on the screen.

If only the story were significantly more interesting. Because “Mank” is forgettable, kind of a blur at this point, and certainly… BORING!

Now, let me just say, I like the concept of this movie. For starters, I am a lover of film history, which “Mank” centers around. And there have been examples of movies about film history that have been done well. A few recent examples include Disney’s “Saving Mr. Banks,” which dives into the production of “Mary Poppins,” and A24’s “The Disaster Artist,” which goes over the production and release of Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room,” one of the most hilariously awful movies to ever exist. In the case of “Mank,” part of what this film is about is the making of “Citizen Kane,” which many consider to be the most important film ever made. Although unlike those previous two examples, which go over the production of the film, this film centers a lot around pre-production and little bit more. There is so much to tackle and analyze in a couple of hours.

If 2020 has taught us anything just with the release of HBO Max’s “Superintelligence,” created by husband and wife team Ben Falcone and Melissa McCarthy, it’s that family projects do not always work. “Mank” is directed by David Fincher and written by his father, Jack Fincher, who passed away in 2003. Said father wrote the script in the 1990s but it never came into fruition until today. As happy as I am to see a family dream fulfilled, my time was nevertheless wasted.

Much of this film involves an election, which sort of makes today the perfect time to release this film considering how we just had a presidential election in the United States. I will say that such a part of film intrigued me, and that is somewhat surprising because as a film buff, that is not really what I was going into “Mank” to see. Even so, it delves into the concept of fake news, which is a relevant term nowadays, and if you think Hollywood is political today, as some people claim it to be, this movie paints a picture of Hollywood perhaps slightly manipulating the minds of people to have an election go their way. I just wish the impact of this subject matter, along with the rest of the movie hit me a tad more. I did not really feel anything except for my reclined seat throughout the film.

Although, some of the performances in “Mank” makes the feature worth the watch. For example, Arliss Howard does a fantastic job playing Louis B. Mayer, and I would not mind seeing him receive a Best Supporting Actor nomination in the future for the role. Although my favorite performance in “Mank” is from Amanda Seyfried. Prior to watching “Mank,” I liked Amanda Seyfried. That’s the case even in movies that I did not necessarily enjoy like “You Should Have Left.” Regardless of how much I wanted that movie to end as I watched it, I still think Seyfried gives it her all each time she performs. When it comes to her performance in “Mank,” this is easily her best yet. Part of it may have to do with the efforts from the costuming and makeup department, because whenever I am looking at her character, I do not feel like I am looking at Seyfried herself. On that note, she, along with “Mank” itself, does an alright job at providing a sense of immersion. I wish I left this film with a sense of being able to remember everything within a few days, but still.

And of course, you have Gary Oldman, who gives another great performance here. Oldman is a fine actor, although he is not my favorite of all time. Even so, I respect the man because he traditionally commits to his craft. While I would not consider his performance as Mankiewicz to be his best, Oldman does a great job in “Mank,” he has solid chemistry with Lily Collins during scenes they’re in together, and I do think he will be in a number of conversations during the awards season.

There are many films like “Dunkirk,” “Blade Runner,” and “Tenet” that I have been willing to give more than one watch because for all I know maybe I missed something the first time, or maybe my appreciation for those films could grow with each watch. I do not think “Mank,” as attractive as it is to the pupil, will end up being one of those films. It feels like a one and done deal. That’s really sad because I feel like this is the film, more than any other, that Netflix is going to hype up for the awards season. And it is deserving of nominations in a number of regards. Unfortunately, story and characterization might not be one of them, at least for me.

In the end, “Mank” almost stank. It was halfway decent, but could not quite stick the landing. If you want my recommendation, I will say as someone who has watched “Citizen Kane,” I think that it would be a better idea to watch that film, which “Mank” sort of bases its story around, instead of David Fincher’s latest directorial effort. I hope to maybe watch some of Fincher’s other films in the future when I have the motivation, but I do not know if I will have the motivation to watch “Mank” anytime soon. I’m going to give “Mank” a 5/10.

“Mank” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another Netflix original film, “The Midnight Sky,” directed by George Clooney. Before I saw this film, I was pretty excited to watch it as I am a sucker for space movies. As for my final thoughts, you’ll have to wait on those. Stay tuned! Speaking of staying tuned, if you want to stay tuned for more great content, follow Scene Before either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mank?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite David Fincher movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

I Am Greta (2020): A Fine, Essential Panic Attack

Posted on by Jack Drees

“I Am Greta” is directed by Nathan Grossman, stars Greta Thunberg, and it follows the titular young, teenage girl who spends her days advocating for climate justice. It focuses on her life in Sweden, the expansion of her mission that now spans around the world, and the impact that her actions have on others.

If you are reading Scene Before for the first time, welcome! I happily allow just about anyone to read my blog, including my enemies. Because at the end of the day, my goal is to entertain everyone. But let me just be clear on one thing.

Climate change is real.

I rarely talk about societal issues, but this is one of those times that I have to. The fact that this is still a debate is agonizing to me. With that in mind, let’s move on.

Greta Thunberg is a somewhat recently popularized figure, and when it comes to the climate crisis, her name has in a way become synonymous. Sort of in the same way that Grubhub has with the ease of being lazy and ordering a large pizza for yourself at 9PM. I have a strong feeling that in years from now, Thunberg will continue to have a presence in these spheres of history as someone who pioneered her way through the climate epidemic. And based on what this movie has shown to me, her story has only begun. After all, Thunberg is still in her teens, and whether or not this crisis is solvable is a continuous question mark.

If you want my honest thoughts about “I Am Greta,” it is my favorite documentary of 2020 so far. I do not know how many more I plan to watch. “76 Days” admittedly looks pretty good, but of the ones that I have seen this year, this is probably going to be the one that I will look back on at the end of the year happy to have paid money for. I will say though, I have to bring back the old saying of 2020, this does not say much.

One of the things I read on Rotten Tomatoes before watching this documentary is that the movie is pretty good, but not that educational. This is what I found through the “Critics Consensus.”

“Audiences might not learn anything new from I Am Greta, but its stirring chronicle of the young activist’s efforts is inspiring.”

Honestly, I could end the review right here, because that is sort of dead on accurate, but I prefer not to.

I feel like this consensus stands true for a viewer like myself because I already knew Greta Thunberg, and this documentary reinforces that climate change is often seen as the big issue for my generation, as if our very survival depends on it. This movie does not always present something that I have not heard, seen, or thought already. It more or less goes into my brain, takes all the information out, and implants certain pieces into the final product of the documentary. So as I watched this movie, there are points where I go, “Hmm, I remember that,” because I’ve seen it already. After all, I have a strong feeling that if you were to watch this documentary for the first time, there is a strong chance that you will go in having heard Greta Thunberg’s name in some alternate context before. Thunberg was featured on late night talk shows such as The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, she has been all over the news, she became Time’s Person of the Year, and she’s even been a subject of Donald Trump’s tweets, but not in a way that would make her smile.

Although one of my favorite parts of the movie specifically dives into Thunberg’s exposure to her place in hate culture on the Internet, and I was amused by how she was able to laugh it off. It sort of goes to show the maturity of her character and maybe she really is able to… Chill.

While I may not be as much in the forefront of the climate crisis as her, this movie did remind me of how I happened to relate to Greta Thunberg. Because we are both on the autism spectrum. Granted, our official classifications on said spectrum are slightly different, but they are defining characteristics of ourselves. There’s a point where someone chats with Thunberg, and they bring up how she “suffers” from Asperger’s. She then goes on to affirm that she has it, but from her view, she does not suffer from it. I have high function autism, and yes, it may partially factor into why I have “sensitive hearing,” but this movie also shows that people on the spectrum often find themselves interested in something only to become laser-focused on it. I have many interests in life. Movies, game shows, elevators, trains, and so on. But one thing that is true about me sometimes is that I can find myself in a rabbit hole from time to time.

This film takes place through much of 2019, and the message of the story stands true a year after much of this happened. And this is a little weird to say about a documentary, but I wouldn’t mind Nathan Grossman and the crew behind this film continuing the story through the lens. Not only is it about a defining issue of the times, but much of this movie incorporates an element that you cannot have today, and possibly our future depending on how society fills the pages of COVID-19. Crowds. The movie starts off with Greta Thunberg in her native country of Sweden, forming a small crowd of people to strike with her. We see that this evolves to the part where she speaks to officials and large crowds in various settings. With COVID-19 being a major issue, not to mention one that can affect a core element of Thunberg’s activism, I would be interested to see a sequel on how she deals with climate justice during the times of COVID-19.

This is one of those movies which could potentially have an impact nobody has realized yet. I say that because the film addresses the idea that even though there is a climate crisis, some would suggest there is a lot that is being done about it. Thunberg refuses to accept that notion and makes sure government officials and leaders not only lend their ears to her, but give in to her demands. Do we do something, or stand by? That is a question that we have to answer ourselves. But as we answer that question, there is a solid chance that many will look back at “I Am Greta” as an important film that asks such questions.

In the end, “I Am Greta” is a film that does not really introduce me to anything new in regards to the climate crisis, although it does a really effective job at chronicling Thunberg’s recent life story. Greta Thunberg is a name that I have heard plenty of times before this documentary came out, and there is a solid chance, depending on how well this film does, I will being hearing the name many more times. If there was anything else to add, I think the film had a well-realized ending, and it is part of why I want a part 2 to this story. It highlights the work that needs to be done, while also emphasizing how far Thunberg has progressed in so little time. This movie sort of feels like a fraction of a superhero origin story, but I would like to see where it goes from here. I am going to give “I Am Greta” a 7/10.

I wonder if I should start doing this more, because the pandemic has many options for movie-watching now, but if you want to watch “I Am Greta,” it is now available on Hulu if you want to watch it at home. I watched it through docnyc.net, which links to a virtual edition of one of the largest documentary film festivals. I spotted them $12 to spread some support, and if you want to watch anything through the festival, the options for all the documentaries are available until November 19th. “I Am Greta” was also theatrically released, but I am honestly not sure if any theaters are carrying the film at this point.

Thanks for reading this review! This Tuesday, I am going to be watching the all new Amazon Studios movie, “Sound of Metal.” I just saw the trailer for this movie, I am pretty excited, and it hits theaters this Friday, so I may have a review done before the official release. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Also, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “I Am Greta?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite documentary of 2020? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!