Biography

The Upside (2017): Breaking Hart

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BNzY3NzYyNjI0N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjYzMDc0NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006741000_AL_

“The Upside” is directed by Neil Burger (Divergent, Limitless) and stars Kevin Hart (Ride Along, The Wedding Ringer) and Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad, Godzilla) as a seemingly unlikely pair who meet each other, develop a friendship, and therefore we have our movie. Cranston plays a paraplegic and Hart plays an ex-con who also manages to become Cranston’s caretaker. The movie is based on the true story of Philippe Pozzo di Borgo, who suffered from a paragliding accident, therefore giving him unfortunate injuries.

Does this movie sound familiar to you? Well guess what? It exists, not just in the form of “The Upside,” but it also exists in the form of “The Intouchables,” an early 2010s French film. The film was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film, but lost to an Austrian film by the name of “Amour.” However, this didn’t deteriorate the overall quality of “The Intouchables” because on IMDb, it made the #40 spot on the site’s “Top 250” list. However, when it comes to my experience with “The Intouchables,” I can say it is very limited given how I never sat down and watched it. I might as well say that the main reason why I even went to the theater and watched “The Upside” in the first place is because it was a free movie. I subscribe to alerts of free screenings, and this is one of the things I got in my inbox. And knowing how my mother tends to enjoy comedies, not to mention Kevin Hart, I thought this would be good for us to see together.

But one thing got in the way, the ratings. Prior to going to the screening, I looked at the movie from a research perspective and one thing that stood out to me was its low IMDb score. In fact, as of doing this review, it’s still pretty low, it’s actually less than a 4! Why is that the case? I have no idea. For all I know, the low scores may have come from hardcore supporters of “The Intouchables,” people who hate remakes, or those who don’t want Kevin Hart hosting the Oscars. However, this movie released in 2017 at TIFF, and part of me wonders if the low verdicts came from negative reviews at the festival. Either that, or another thing that is highly possible is a bit of information that may not be on everyone’s mind. If anyone is curious as to what movies Harvey Weinstein’s production company would have been associated with in 2018, “The Upside” was supposed to be one of them. However, with the destruction of Harvey Weinstein’s film career, this movie was given to STX, which is a newer studio known for films such as “I Feel Pretty,” “Hardcore Henry,” “Bad Moms,” and “The Circle.” Maybe the verdicts had to do with that, I don’t know the full story. But the reality is I personally enjoyed myself while watching “The Upside.”

This is the first 2019 release I have watched. Some may argue it is a 2017 release, but as far as I am concerned, it’s a 2019 flick. And I got to say, this was a good way to kick off the year in film. Is it perfect? No it’s not. In fact, part of me wonders if I am overhyping it. This movie had heart, it had good chemistry, and a surprising amount of laughs packed into it. I walked out of the movie alongside my mother, moments later we talked about it, and she pointed out my laughing. If you have seen a couple of my posts or know me in real life, you’d probably get the gist that when it comes to comedy, there are times where I feel like I’ve seen it all. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that “The Upside” brings anything new to the table, but despite some cliche moments, all of them seem to be delivered with a sense of passion. There’s a good amount of physical comedy, sexual humor, and some occasional yells. Speaking of which, let’s talk about Kevin Hart.

When I think of annoying, crazy, loud comedians who occasionally pop up in movies, I think of Melissa McCarthy. Kevin Hart is pretty much the same person, although he’s a black male. Wait did I really just say that? I take that back, because I assure you, Kevin Hart is the complete opposite of annoying. Hart is always that comedian that raises his voice, but manages to do it with charm. He’s basically Tyler Perry with a superior agent. One minor critique I’d give to Kevin Hart as an actor is his range. He always tends to be the very person I described. He always manages to play himself or someone that has identical qualities to Hart: An arrogant loudmouth who likes to joke around. However, when it comes to his performance in “The Upside,” this slightly made me rethink my critique, partially because this may be the best performance I’ve seen from Kevin Hart yet. If you have seen a Kevin Hart movie, you’re probably familiar with his shtick. Just watch “Ride Along,” “Central Intelligence,” even “The Secret Life of Pets.” He yells A LOT. He’s even like that in real life, go on YouTube and watch Kevin Hart’s 2013 appearance on SportsCenter as he does the top 10. It’s one of the funniest things to ever exist. Seriously. The reason why I consider this to be the best Kevin Hart performance is because it tends to shy away from the cliches we see from him. Hart seems to tone down his voice a little more often, not to mention he’s more serious as opposed to a joker. Granted, it’s not the best performance I’ve seen from an actor, but it made me look at Kevin Hart in a whole new light. His strength will always be full-fledged comedy, but if someone asked me whether or not Hart has the potential to land some serious roles in the future, I wouldn’t say Hart can’t do such a thing. His performance as Dell is done with serious skill.

When it comes to Cranston, I must say he performed with excellence too. Compared to Hart, Cranston seemed to deliver drier humor. He seems to have less emotion than a good number of characters in the film, but at the same time, it is hard to display emotion when you are seriously injured. This does not suggest his character lacks personality, as we see one of the most commonly exposed gags of the film happens to be Cranston’s extreme obsession with opera.

I will say one thing though about the movie, as heartfelt and funny as this movie may be, it has a glaring problem in my opinion. I can sit for a couple of hours in a dark room with images on a screen at moving on a screen at twenty-four frames per second. But there are times when I felt there was nothing happening. There is an argument to be made that the entire movie revolves around the friendship of the two leads, but one of the things that might as well be an important part of any movie is a central problem. There are moments of conflict in the film, but they are resolved quickly and sort of feel rushed. Remember how in “Spider-Man 2” Peter Parker decided to quit being Spider-Man? It almost felt like if there was a complete change in that movie, where Parker puts his suit in the garbage, walks through the alley, then scoots back around only to put it on again. The conflict in this film just feels like something small, when you can’t find the TV remote and are looking all over the place for it, as opposed to something huge, such as the loss of your life savings or your identity. However, this critique is highly forgivable due to the admirable chemistry between the leads, the humor, and the performances.

In the end, “The Upside” was a surprise if there ever was one. And it just goes to show that not all remakes suck. Granted, this is coming from someone who has still yet to see “The Intouchables,” so maybe my opinion could change over time, but if you want a funny movie with heart, I do recommend “The Upside.” Is it a tad cliche? At times. Is it somewhat forgettable? Certainly. But it is also a good time at the movies. If you want to see Kevin Hart at his best, I must declare that “The Upside” is definitely for you. I am going to give “The Upside” a 6/10. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I am going to be announcing the nominees for my upcoming awards ceremony, the Jackoff Awards, but before I do that, I have a few more 2018 films to watch including “Roma,” “Green Book,” and “On the Basis of Sex.” Be sure to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The Upside?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “The Intouchables?” What did you think about that? Which is the better movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Favourite (2018): Not My Favourite 2018 Flick

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTg1NzQwMDQxNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDg2NDYyNjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006701000_AL_

“The Favourite” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (The Lobster, The Killing of a Sacred Deer) and stars Olivia Colman (The Crown, Hot Fuzz), Rachel Weisz (Denial, The Mummy), and Emma Stone (Easy A, The Amazing Spider-Man) in a movie mainly about three women living in 18th century England. Queen Anne currently has the throne. She is close to Lady Sarah, who is taking her place for a certain time being. Meanwhile, a new servant comes in to help. Specifically, a woman by the name of Abigail.

My first ever exposure to “The Favourite” happened back in August when I saw “Eighth Grade.” Naturally, given how “Eighth Grade” leans towards roots of indie filmmaking, the trailers before the movie were mainly indies. I wanted to see this movie mainly because it has been given phenomenal reviews from critics and viewers alike. Plus, it seems to have enough legs for awards season. “The Favourite” has a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, actresses Colman, Weisz, and Stone have all been praised for their performances, the director has been nominated for an Oscar for the last movie he did for its screenplay. While “The Favourite” was not my most anticipated film of the year, it certainly had enough to get me intrigued.

A lot of people like this movie, and I’m glad people are all able to agree that something can be artistic, compelling, and interesting.

I’m sorry, but I gotta poop on the party here. “The Favourite” is not that great.

Don’t get me wrong, there are things worth praising. The three main characters are all portrayed very well, the production design is unbelievable, and there are parts of the score that almost make me want to listen to it by itself.

That’s pretty much all I can really sum up in terms of positives that stood out. Because while I couldn’t come to the point where I’d consider this movie unwatchable, I thought that as a story it’s just… BORING.

Granted, it’s a period piece where there is no real action, so a lack of fast pacing is to be expected, but HOLY F*CK, this is a very well reviewed movie. I am surprised, disappointed, and I feel like I can’t get back the couple of hours I wasted watching “The Favourite.”

Wait, did I seriously just say that I wasted a couple of hours? Um, I’m sorry, that’s the actual runtime of the movie, so that would be generous. Look up the runtime, it’s a couple of hours and a minute. This movie dragged on to the point to where it felt like it was three hours! It felt like I was watching “Titanic!” Wait, did I mess myself up again? Why yes I did, the pacing to “Titanic” worked! The pacing to “The Favourite” just made me feel like I was watching a movie that just didn’t know when exactly it wanted to end.

This movie at times reminded me of another movie I saw as a kid, but truthfully have not seen since said point, and that’s “Babe.” This movie almost plays out like a book at times, because they provide “acts” or “chapters,” I’m not sure what the writers would prefer to call them. It kind of reminded me of “Babe” when they would cut to a title card of the new chapter’s name. It worked for “Babe,” probably because of the talking animals, maybe it added to the gimmick. Who knows? Maybe I’m cheating, because “Babe” is actually an hour and a half long. I won’t say how many chapters are in “The Favourite,” but the addition of telling me exactly where we are in the movie just made me feel extremely bored.

Granted, there is a part of me that really does want to like this movie, but I feel like my brain is going crazy and a large part of me is trying to remove this movie from my life. Every year, I imagine there is some average viewer out there looking at the Oscar-bait films and maybe they’ll agree with some picks, even if they don’t necessarily love them. But there is that one film that might be what someone would envision as Best Picture. When I say someone in this situation, I am thinking of snobby critics. There’s a good chance there is a regular Joe out there who won’t give a crap about what it is the snobby critics are thinking about. In fact, the regular Joe might as well be saying that the opinions of the snobby critics happen to be nothing more than pure dogs*it. I am not envisioning “The Favourite” as a masterpiece, so why should I envision it as a Best Picture contender?

I will give some credit for the story for not making me fall asleep, because I was able to not only buy into the chemistry between the main characters, but also manage to somewhat care about them. But again, I felt like I watched their story play out for a bit longer than I would have preferred.

Another thing I’d like to give massive credit towards is the beyond beautiful cinematography. There are many shots that feel massive, and immersed me personally into this film. Also, I would love to point that this was shot on 35mm film as opposed to many other films coming out now which are mainly shot digitally.

Through the beautiful cinematography we get a look at a lot of the gorgeous sets and locations in the movie. All of the set choices felt really authentic, especially considering how “The Favourite” was shot in Britain. There were a couple of indoor scenes that I thought had fantastic lighting, especially in some darker scenes where I could still see our characters. In fact, given all the candlelit scenes, it almost reminded me of what it would be like to see a “Minecraft” movie in live-action.

I would talk about the characters in depth, but the movie’s not good enough to deserve such a thing. I make it a tradition on Scene Before to make thousand word reviews at minimum, and I don’t want to waste my time talking about characters who I’ll probably not remember in months time. I will say, the main actors of the movie did a good job. But this movie is just forgettable in the worst possible way.

Let’s be real here though. If I were to only judge “The Favourite” from a technical perspective, I’d give it a very positive grade. I think stylistically speaking, “The Favourite” triumphs and turns out to be one of the best movies of the year. But it’s bogged down by horrible pacing, forgettable scenes, and just a boring vibe. Maybe it will make for good background noise that will look nice on a screen, kind of like what I said for the live-action “Ghost in the Shell” flick that came out last year, but as a movie, it just does not work.

In the end, maybe I’m overreacting, but I don’t feel like I wasted 2 hours. I feel like I wasted an eternity. “The Favourite” does for English-based period pieces what “The Girl on the Train” does for mysteries. It may have good acting, but the pacing is blasphemous. In fact, to throw my point at the wall and guarantee it to stick, let me just have you know that when I saw “The Favourite,” I saw “Vice” as part of a double feature. “Vice” is also based on a true story and happens to be over 10 minutes longer than “The Favourite.” Not only did I like “Vice,” I didn’t feel like I was tied to a chair watching paint dry. But I gotta give “The Favourite” credit where its due, despite how it is similar to watching paint dry at times, at least the paint color was a good choice. I’m going to give “The Favourite” a 4/10. This could change at any time, and who knows? Maybe by Oscar night, the verdict could go up, perhaps even double. I dunno, my brain could be going through hell right now for all I know. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’m gonna have my review up for “Aquaman.” I just saw it recently and I have plenty to say about it. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or email to stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The Favourite?” What did you think about it? Or, since it kind of makes sense, what is your favorite movie of 2018? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Vice: 2018’s Biggest “Dick Pic”

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTY1NjM0MzgxMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc4NTY0NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006401000_AL_

“Vice” is directed by Adam McKay (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Big Short) and stars Christian Bale (The Dark Knight, American Hustle), Amy Adams (Nocturnal Animals, Arrival), Steve Carell (The Office, Battle of the Sexes), Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, F Is For Family), Tyler Perry (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Gone Girl), Allison Pill (American Horror Story, The Newsroom), and Jesse Plemons (Game Night, Friday Night Lights). This film is based on the true events, or as the movie suggests, as true as possible, revolving around Dick Cheney, a prominent figure in the US government, and his story of how he changed US history as we know it.

This film is directed by Adam McKay, a name who I do know primarily for comedy. He has done a lot of work with Will Ferrell including “Anchorman,” “Step Brothers,” and “The Other Guys.” Also, he was one of the writers for “Ant-Man.” And while “Ant-Man” may technically be regarded as an action flick with superheroes, part of me would also argue it is a comedy because like some other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe like “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and “Thor: Ragnarok,” it has many attempts at humor riddled throughout. He seems to have recently made a transition to serious films, most notably with 2015’s “The Big Short.” No, I have not seen the movie. But with a plot revolving around the mortgage market, some serious s*it is to be expected. I will say when it comes to McKay’s direction, it’s pretty well done, but the real highlight to me when it comes to McKay’s work here is the writing, which transitions into not only one of the trippier movies of the year, but also one of the best edited films of the year. I won’t go into detail, but there is a segment where apparently they start rolling credits during the middle of the movie. F*cking brilliant. Also, this is trying to be a serious film, but also it has that feeling of a Wes Anderson-esque film. It’s serious, but it also knows when to have good old quirky fun.

I will say though, going into the film, I knew this film was already well reviewed (for the most part). It has a leading total of six Golden Globe nominations, a couple of SAG nominations, and the concept sounded like something that would generally create buzz. As for my thoughts, I thought it was pretty good, but maybe not best picture good. I mean, looking at the Golden Globes nominees, I’d probably choose “Vice” as the musical/comedy winner, but that doesn’t say a lot. I have not seen “Crazy Rich Asians,” “Green Book,” or “Mary Poppins Returns,” and as for “The Favourite,” without spilling my ultimate thoughts on it (review coming soon), it was just not as likable as “Vice.” The biggest problem I can think of when it comes to this film more than any other is that it mislead me in terms of expectations. The marketing made me think this was heavily going to revolve around the George W. Bush administration, but it is really more about Dick Cheney’s life as a whole.

When it comes to Dick Cheney, I felt this interpretation of the character was very well done, and Christian Bale could have a chance at getting some awards. I gotta also give praise to the makeup department, because HOLY CRAP. Christian Bale is in his forties right now and the makeup in this movie makes him look like he’s a lazy grandpa on a generic sitcom that never got good ratings. I watched a movie that came out last year, you guys may know what I’m talking about, “Darkest Hour,” which starred Gary Oldman. The makeup for Dick Cheney in this movie is about on par as the makeup for Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour.” In “Darkest Hour,” you have Gary Oldman, who at the time wasn’t “young” per se, but he still looked relatively youthful given his age. In “Darkest Hour” he transformed into, well, Gary the “Old Man.” In “Vice,” the same can be said for Christian Bale, who actually happens to be younger than Gary Oldman.

Another standout performance comes from Amy Adams as Cheney’s wife, Lynne. The way they showed her off in this movie was kind of intriguing. It shows the power of a lovely husband and wife. Cheney would occasionally need to bow out from his campaign for one reason or another but his kick-ass wife would occasionally step in. Also, yes, from an acting perspective, Adams is SUPERB. I became rather invested in her character for some time, not to mention her relationship with Dick Cheney. I cared about their family, their daughter happened to come out as gay, and despite coming off as conservative, they clearly understand their daughter. I wouldn’t call this movie LGBT propaganda, which I think is cool because propaganda is something I usually don’t want in my media, but it just shows you how human people can be. Granted, this is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood nowadays is full of liberals, so there is a good chance that there is a liberal agenda attached here somewhere, but still.

My personal favorite acting job in the movie was done by Sam Rockwell. Last year he won an Oscar for his role in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” so therefore it should be no surprise that the dude has acting chops. Honestly, I think he might have a shot at another one. He plays George W. Bush like angry ten year old plays “Fortnite.” He’s lean, mean, and he just does it oh so beautifully. Last year when I saw “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Rockwell might as well have done my third favorite acting job in that film. Here, he’s probably at my top spot. And again, the makeup department did a great job here! No debate about it.

I will say that I might have an interesting perspective when it comes to this movie because I actually grew up during the Bush adminstration. I actually wasn’t old enough to remember 9/11. My earliest memory of hearing about it was in the year 2011, when I was eleven years old and watching a commercial on Nickelodeon while “Spongebob Squarepants” was on or something like that. This movie manages to capture the fear of the 9/11 event from inside government headquarters. It also manages to showcase how Cheney was able to get s*it done, and really, he seemed to have gotten more done than George Bush. There is a scene where the two are sitting down and having chat, some time before Bush became president and Cheney just suggests he’ll deal with foreign policy, bureaucracy, whatever any normal human being would find boring about working as the president of the United States.

Also, one last thing, I mentioned that Adam McKay wrote a Marvel movie, but now it can be argued that he directed a Marvel movie. Stay for the credits because there is a good scene to watch if you pay attention. I WILL NOT go into detail, but it takes a bunch of people who are in the movie for a scene and just basically puts them in a funhouse of our modern society. Look forward to it.

In the end, “Vice” was not exactly disappointing, but it also wasn’t the “Best Picture” that the Golden Globes seems to be calling it. To me, this is another “Moonlight.” It’s good, but not “Best Picture-worthy.” I would love to however give massive kudos to the editing, writing, acting, and makeup department. Everyone affiliated with those categories, you rock, you’re awesome! There’s a good chance I’ll watch the movie again at some point, but when it comes to award-bait this year, to me, “Vice” is no “First Man.” I’m going to give “Vice” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’m going to have my review up for “The Favourite,” which is going to probably be my final review of the year. I want to see “Aquaman” at some point, but part of me is not sure if I’ll get to it on time before the new year begins. But speaking of the new year, be sure to stay tuned for my top 10 BEST movies of 2018 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2018. Those lists will be up once 2019 arrives. Be sure to follow Scene Before with a WordPress account or email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Vice?” What do you think about it? Or, what do you think is going to happen at the Golden Globes this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Welcome To Marwen (2018): Back to the Future Part IV: A Robert Zemeckis Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMjIxMjUwMjItMGIxYS00NTlmLTgxZTQtMzg2Yjc1ZWQ3YTYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjM4NTM5NDY@._V1_SY1000_CR006311000_AL_

“Welcome To Marwen” is directed by Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump) and stars Steve Carell (The Office, The 40-Year-Old Virgin), Eiza González (True Love, Baby Driver), Leslie Mann (Blockers, Knocked Up), Merritt Wever (Signs, Nurse Jackie), Janelle Monáe (Hidden Figures, Moonlight), Gwendoline Christie (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Game of Thrones), Leslie Zemeckis (The Polar Express, Beowulf), and Neil Jackson (Quantum of Solace, Abesentia). This film is about an assault victim who likes cross-dressing. The victim’s specific name is Mark Hogancamp, and after the attack, it has been revealed that his memory is not in good shape. In order to restore his memory, Hogancamp decides to build a World War II village in his yard.

I saw the trailer for “Welcome to Marwen” a while back, and even if I didn’t see the trailer, I probably would have been excited for the film no matter what. Why? Well, Robert Zemeckis is directing the film. I loved his work in numerous films including “Back to the Future,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?,” “The Walk,” I just think the dude has serious visionary talent when it comes to crafting a film. “Welcome to Marwen,” on paper, is no exception to this notion. The film manages to focus on the real life events of Mark Hogancamp while simultaneously giving a nearly animated look at his dolls. So in a way, you can also call this the live action version of “Toy Story.”

If you want my short thoughts on the film right away, I’ll be honest, I really f*cking enjoyed it. In fact, I have to say it’s one of the year’s best films, but to be completely honest it is not for everyone. When I say that, I don’t mean that in a way that is sort of related to the movie showing mature content or giving viewers scares or anything, but there is something in this movie that I noticed, but when I went on social media, it kind of got an uplift in terms of how it was addressed.

Without spoiling anything, Steve Carell’s character has a certain “attachment” if you will to his dolls. I have a feeling some will consider it cute, some will consider it creepy. I am on the side that finds this to be cute. But if you really want to know if I have problems with the film itself, I only really have one thing that I think I can address, and it’s kind of in the nitpick territory.

“Welcome to Marwen” is based on a true story, and I haven’t looked much into said story or watched the documentary from which this movie adapts, so I don’t know how much is altered. Although there is one story that applies to the dolls, I won’t go into detail about it, it could be possible that Hogancamp came up with bits and pieces of the story at the very least, and it involves time travel. The dolls are supposed to go into the future by 15 lightyears. The fact is, I have to be Mr. Movie Reviewing Moron and point out that lightyears are a unit of distance and not time. A lightyear is nearly six trillion miles. If this were fiction, I’d probably be a bit more harsh when it comes to this film, especially if it were a movie specifically revolving around time travel, but I still couldn’t help but point this out.

The reason why I love “Welcome to Marwen” so much not only has to do with visuals, characterization, directing, anything like that, but it also has to do with the fact that this is a story about storytelling. A good portion of the movie focuses on the CGI world of dolls. It partially helps us in understanding who exactly our main character is, not to mention, who he wants to be. Not only was the world immersive, engaging, and charming, the doll characters are also a delight. They have this vibe to them that makes you want to hang out with them, or at least one that makes you think they can protect you. And in total honesty, the last time I saw some sort of concept similar to the style executed in “Welcome to Marwen” is probably… …well, I don’t know. If they ever make a live action “Toy Story,” I’d remind Disney and Pixar “Welcome to Marwen” beat them to it.

Speaking of this world, this is also responsible for many of my personal surprises in the movie. This is technically a vision where dolls can talk, but I didn’t expect the badassery out of some of the action scenes which were given to me here! In fact, there are times, when this movie, despite being PG-13 and not R, goes for dark violence. There is a scene in the movie where a doll splits in half! There is also a scene where a doll falls into a fence, and the top of the fence is going through its body like a sword!

Before we discuss Steve Carell’s character of Mark Hogancamp, I would just like to say that this year has been interesting for a couple cast members of “The Office.” You have two transitions from a couple of actors who were once comedy-oriented and now they’re trying to get more serious. You have John Krasinski who did “A Quiet Place” and you also have Steve Carell who was in “Beautiful Boy,” “Vice,” and this movie. Also, when it comes to Carell I gotta say, the dude can act. I was able to buy this character and see him for the way he was. He manages to deliver certain mannerisms that made me feel for his character. If I were to make a comparison, if you have ever seen “Anchorman” and you wanted a more serious version of his character in that, with perhaps ten times the depth provided to his character in that movie, this is the flick for you.

The other real highlight in this movie for me in terms of characters is the one played by Leslie Mann, specifically Nicol. Yes, there is no “e” in her name. Mann’s character in this film is someone who not only has a story of her own, but manages to play quite a bit into the story of Hogancamp as well. There is a scene in this film that was extremely well acted by both Carell and Mann, and no matter what you think of it in terms of realism, I thought it was very well done.

When it comes to all of the dolls Hogancamp owns, each one manages to have its own story, which I really liked. They are not just pieces of plastic that Hogancamp plays with. In fact, his own doll even helps explain the story of him getting beat up for cross-dressing. If you had to ask me personally, I have no interest in cross-dressing, but for those of you who do, that’s your thing and I don’t care, I’m not gonna straight up attack you over it. The film does a great job at making you side with someone because they were attacked for something they wore. If they wore a t-shirt that said “EVERYONE DESERVES TO DIE,” that’s a different scenario, but nevertheless, this film succeeds.

I also will say one thing about this movie, it’s directed by Robert Zemeckis, director of “Back to the Future.” The thing about “Welcome to Marwen” that I want to talk about has to do with my recent nitpick. One of the gadgets that plays into the story of the dolls in the movie is a time machine, and it nearly resembles a Delorean. So if you guys want to see Robert Zemeckis direct another “Back to the Future” movie, this is the closest you’re going to get.

In the end, I LOVED “Welcome to Marwen!” Is this a movie for everyone? From the way it is marketed, almost. It’s not for kids, there’s some serious s*it that goes down in the movie. But I wouldn’t say that I’d recommend this movie for every single audience. But for ME, and ME PERSONALLY, I ate this movie up. It sort of blends “Toy Story,” “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” and “Back to the Future.” This film might be an Oscar contender, but I don’t think it’s gonna make much money though. Aside how this film is seemingly going to be divisive in terms of criticism, it is competing against “Aquaman,” “Bumblebee,” “Mary Poppins Returns,” and “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” but if you want to support an artistic vision, this is for you. I have no idea how long this is going to last, and I’m sorry for saying this based on how many reviews are trashing on this movie, I’m going to give “Welcome to Marwen” a 10/10! This is probably one of those scenarios where my unbelievably crazy opinion is going to stand out from a lot of other people. So you know what? In celebration of absurdity, let’s talk about some other unique film opinions I have.

  • ANIMAL HOUSE WAS BORING!
  • MAD MAX: FURY ROAD IS NOT AS GOOD AS EVERYONE SAID!
  • I ENJOYED PAUL BLART 1 & 2!
  • GROWN UPS 2 IS NOT JUST BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL, IT’S ACTUALLY A GOOD FILM!
  • I LIKED CARS 2!
  • REVENGE OF THE SITH IS THE BEST STAR WARS MOVIE!
  • I LIKED A COUPLE OF LIVE-ACTION TRANSFORMERS FLICKS (1 & 3)!
  • I LOVE TIM BURTON’S CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY!
  • FANT4STIC WAS BAD, BUT NOT AS BAD AS EVERYONE MAKES IT OUT TO BE!
  • GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 IS NOT GOOD!
  • THOR: RAGNAROK IS OVERRATED!
  • THE HOBBIT MOVIES HAVE A PURPOSE IN SOCIETY!
  • OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL MIGHT MATCH THE ORIGINAL WIZARD OF OZ IN TERMS OF QUALITY!
  • I LIKED VALERIAN AND THE CITY OF A THOUSAND PLANETS!
  • I HATED WE BOUGHT A ZOO!
  • PITCH PERFECT IS ONE OF THE WORST COMEDIES I’VE EVER SEEN!
  • DISNEY NEEDS TO STOP THE TREND OF THEIR LIVE ACTION REMAKES DESPITE HOW BEAUTIFUL THEY SOMETIMES MANAGE TO APPEAR!
  • BLACK PANTHER IS OVERRATED!
  • IRON MAN 3 IS MY FAVORITE IRON MAN MOVIE!
  • SPIDER-MAN 3 WAS AWESOME!

So there you go. In the comments section, I want to know a few things. Did you enjoy “Welcome to Marwen?” Not everyone has seen it yet, but still. Also, what are some controversial or odd opinions you have about movies? Your full honesty is absolutely appreciated. Thanks for reading this review! This weekend is a pretty big one for movies, and maybe I’ll catch one of the films that come out on Christmas weekend. The one I want to see, aside from ones that could have potential at winning an Oscar, is “Aquaman.” After all, if I do so, it’ll mean I’ll have given my thoughts on every major comic book movie this year. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018): This Movie Will Rock You, and Occasionally Drop a Rock Over You

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bndg2njixmduynf5bml5banbnxkftztgwmzeznte1ntm-_v1_sy1000_cr006291000_al_

“Bohemian Rhapsody” is directed by Bryan Singer (X-Men, Jack the Giant Slayer) and stars Rami Malek (Night at the Museum, BoJack Horseman) and is about the story of Queen and its singer, Freddie Mercury. We get glimpses into the formation of Queen itself, Mercury’s personal life, and how the band went on to become the huge success and inspiration powerhouse that it is.

If you ask me what my favorite genres of music are, chances are that one of my answers would be rock. Queen formed during a time of rock and roll bands being pretty much in their prime. As we look back on them today, they’ve helped shape the genre with iconic beats, lyrics, and how their music has blended into our pop culture. One of my all time favorite scenes from a comedy that’s not necessarily funny is the pep rally scene during “Revenge of the Nerds” where “We Are the Champions” is playing as the nerds achieve victory against the jocks. One of my favorite songs that I often don’t typically quote as being a favorite song happens to be the movie’s title, “Bohemian Rhapsody.” There so many elements to that song that separates it as its own thing whereas all the other songs follow a certain formulaic rhythm. While some may consider songs not following a rhythm a giant flaw, “Bohemian Rhapsody” manages to make such an odd quality work extremely well. Speaking of which, the creation of this song basically highlights something I’ve noticed while watching this movie, and something that I often think about when it comes to the movie industry.

One of my favorite movies of all time is “Blade Runner 2049.” Much like its predecessor, it failed at the box office. As far as the domestic total goes, it didn’t make its budget back. One reason behind this is probably likely due to the movie’s runtime coming in around two hours and forty-three minutes. There’s a part of the movie where we see “Bohemian Rhapsody” coming to life, and the executive is basically denying permission to let the public hear the song. Queen’s band members think their song is nothing short of a masterpiece, but as we all know, corporations are about money. This is where the phrase “time equals money/money equals time” comes into play. The executive thinks the song is too long, six minutes to be specific, which leads to a fantastic sex joke by the way. When it comes to “Bohemian Rhapsody,” I assume a lot of people can look at a song like that today and say that it was created with a purpose to stand out from other songs. This is why I think modern music sucks. Most of the modern music I hear, especially those songs that play on loop on the radio for all of eternity, all seem to have similar patterns or formulas. It’s almost as if every song is an obvious remix of each other. Oh yeah, and with most modern music, technology has basically ruined a lot of it. Moments like this shows that it is sometimes OK to take risks and throw money out the window for the chance of an everlasting success. In terms of scenes, this was most certainly the highlight of the movie for me. As far as characters go, it’s gotta be Freddie Mercury.

Freddie Mercury is played by Rami Malek, but in reality, to say Malek “played” Freddie Mercury is a bit of understatement. In my book, Malek transformed into Mercury. In terms of singing, it is a slight disappointment that Malek is lip-syncing, but at the same time, I can’t help but praise him for everything else. Everything from the mannerisms, the moves, and while this may be more of a compliment towards costume design, I have enormous praise for the outfits he’s got on. As far as his performance goes, I don’t know if it will win him an Oscar, but he certainly comes close as far as this year is concerned. In fact, I will admit, funny enough, when it comes to my overall knowledge of Queen, the way I view Freddie Mercury’s performance in this film is somewhat similar to how I view Queen in general. I for one definitely know Freddie Mercury and who he is. The other band members, I don’t really know their names, so why should I give a f*ck? That’s not to say that they aren’t good in this movie. All of their actors have done a great job at delivering effective performances, but they don’t stand out that much compared to Malek’s. Then again, that could be because “Bohemian Rhapsody” is more of a Freddie Mercury movie than anything else. Sure, it has Queen. Yes, it has songs from Queen in it. Although it gets through the life of Freddie Mercury in terms of seemingly important plot points. And the more I think about it, it does make sense, the only original member of Queen to have passed away was Mercury himself. Not to mention, the marketing seems to make the movie a lot about Mercury. In the first trailer for this film, it explicity states in text form: “The only thing more extraordinary than their music is his story.” Boom, now you know it’s a Freddie Mercury movie. I will say though, this brings me to some slight confusion about the title. I know Freddie Mercury sings “Bohemian Rhapsody,” but in reality, it is a QUEEN song, executed by multiple members. If you really wanted to smack-dab a sticker on this movie saying “THIS IS UNARGUABLY A FREDDIE MERCURY STORY,” just call it “Mercury.” Sounds kind of epic if you ask me. The more I think about the “Bohemian Rhapsody” movie, the more I think about Freddie Mercury. The other members of Queen just aren’t sticking out to me. It would be like the 2004 movie “Ray.” What’s the movie about? Ray Charles. Granted when I think of Ray Charles, I don’t think of any particular band, but still, if you are going to have your movie revolve around maybe one character as opposed to a band, take my suggestion into consideration. I’m not saying “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a terrible name. It’s an awesome name no matter where you slap it. Not to mention, for a movie like this, it’s still more than marketable. As far as any other performances go, the only one to me that truly stands out is Mike Myers (Shrek, Austin Powers) as the executive I talked about earlier.

If there was one big criticism I had with the movie however, it is some of the writing. This movie is obviously going for some Academy Awards, but I think screenplay is not one that will be achieved. While most of the writing is actually pretty decent, there are a couple of moments I just wasn’t able to believe. These moments just felt rather Hollywoodized. Granted, it’s a movie, and not everything has be crystal clear to reality, but these moments just felt like something I wouldn’t be able to believe. If this movie were pure fiction or a fantasy than maybe I’d buy into a couple of these moments I’m talking about, but I just don’t buy them here. Other than that, I’d say “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a fine movie and certainly worth watching in the theater. If you thought watching “A Star Is Born” is awesome in the theater, it might become somewhat obvious that watching “Bohemian Rhapsody” in the theater would have a similar effect.

Speaking of the theater, I want to go back to what I said earlier about the production of the “Bohemian Rhapsody” song. One of the complaints the executive had in the movie is that the song goes on forever. Let’s face it, a movie about Queen and Freddie Mercury is very likely something people would go out and see. And to prove it even more, IT BEAT A DISNEY MOVIE on its opening weekend. That same weekend by the way, it made less than a million dollars under its overall budget in the US alone! This film is two hours and fourteen minutes long. I wouldn’t consider this film to be a “long” movie, but once I walked out of the auditorium, I heard someone’s conversation calling the movie a bit long as far as they are concerned. I managed to find it hilarious, and maybe a little less than satisfying, to discover that the story to the “Bohemian Rhapsody” song would actually apply to the results of the “Bohemian Rhapsody” movie. To me, this movie reminded me of why I usually choose to enjoy every little moment of what I watch, as opposed to putting my head down waiting for the third hour to pass.

In the end, “Bohemian Rhapsody” had the exhilaration of a concert and at times, the joy of looking at a wax museum. Rami Malek shines as Freddie Mercury. The cinematography really immersed me into the story. The concert scenes were wild and fun. The costume design also deserves tremendous kudos. Is it a little over the top? At times, sure. But it doesn’t take away from the true spirit of Freddie Mercury and Queen itself. “Bohemian Rhapsody” is definitely worth your time, especially for a watch in the theater. I’m going to give “Bohemian Rhapsody” a 7/10. One last thing before I go, when I saw this movie, I witnessed it at an IMAX, and those theaters have given me some of my all time best experiences, but this time the trailers were playing and all of sudden the footage stopped and we were staring at a green frame for maybe five minutes. I have never had so much fun with a movie experience going wrong in my life. Thanks for reading this review! Please stay tuned for more content coming down the road because sometime soon I will be posting my thoughts on this year’s Rhode Island Comic Con! I’ve gone for the fourth year in a row, had a great time, and as someone who has gone for multiple years, I am excited to point out something that has probably been done differently than years before that counts as a complaint from the years prior that has now been somewhat resolved. Those of you who attend the con might know what I’m referring to. Without giving any hints, I’d just like to remind everyone to follow Scene Before either with a WordPress account or an email so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Bohemian Rhapsody?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Queen song? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

First Man (2018): One Giant Spacegasm

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bywfhzgvjmtatzdcwmc00yty3ltljywutnzriodzlowfknjezxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjmxote0oda-_v1_sy1000_cr006311000_al_

“First Man” is directed by Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La La Land) and stars Ryan Gosling (Blade Runner 2049, The Notebook) as Neil Armstrong. This movie takes place during the events of Apollo 11, the most famous of the Apollo missions. Many people going to see this movie probably know the story, Neil Armstrong and some other astronauts attempt to land on the moon, but this movie explains a little bit more than that. It goes into the personal and family life of Neil Armstrong, and shows off all the preparation that went into executing such a daring mission.

I don’t know if many people reading this remember, or even knew when this movie was first announced, but my first time hearing about it was around January 2017 if I recall correctly. As if the concept alone of the moon landing was interesting enough, it was to be helmed by one of my favorite directors working today, Damien Chazelle.

Damien Chazelle is known for his work on “Whiplash,” but in my eyes, his popularity skyrocketed during the release of “La La Land.” That movie is a 2016 musical which went on to win 7 Golden Globes, which also happened to be the total number of awards the movie happened to be nominated for. Speaking of awards, the movie went on to receive 13 Oscar nominations, 6 wins, which doesn’t happen to include the rare instance of the kinda sorta maybe victory of Best Picture. So kids, if you are reading this and think that your dream will never come true, if you think you’ll never be able to colonize Mars one day, just remember this. Two films were labeled Best Picture at the 89th Academy Awards!

When it comes to “First Man,” this is actually a really interesting movie though because out of all the feature-length films Damien Chazelle has done as a director, this is actually the first one he doesn’t have a screenplay credit for. Granted, this movie was actually written by Josh Singer, who also wrote the screenplay for 2015’s “Spotlight,” which won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Even so, the fact that this was not written by Chazelle himself made me slightly worried. I was beginning to wonder if I didn’t like this movie, it might partially lead to me thinking Chazelle is another Brad Bird. He’s a fantastic director, but only fantastic when it comes to directing his own material. Having seen this movie, that worry is meaningless, because I’ll be honest with you, this is one of the best movies I’ve seen all year. In fact, when putting Chazelle into the conversation, it’s my second favorite film of his directly behind “Whiplash.”

Just about everything in “First Man” worked. The acting, the directing, the score, the entertainment value, the sound work, the effects, everything just felt as if it was created by a god. I went to see “First Man” in IMAX, which I will get to, but I must say, regardless of whether or not you went to see “First Man” in IMAX, I must tell you, this is one of those films that you have to get off your ass and see in the theater. This joins some recent films like “Dunkirk,” “Blade Runner 2049,” “Avengers: Infinity War,” “Ready Player One,” and “A Quiet Place” on the list of films to watch on the big screen. What the crew did for this movie in terms of cinematography is genius.

In all honesty, part of me wonders how many people will notice or care to notice, some of the images in the movie, are incredibly fuzzy or grainy and it just feels like they were gathering dust before processing. Let me just have you know that this movie was shot on 16mm film. Most of the scenes early on in the films, that take place on Earth, looked somewhat old-timey. And I honestly thought that fit, because believe it or not, I don’t know how much you guys know about Neil Armstrong’s life, but when this movie started it was basically a soap opera. For some people, I imagine that will take them out of the movie, but to me, it fit because for one thing, you can’t alter history. It partially comes into play when developing Armstrong as a character. Also, it showcases the excellent acting ability of Ryan Gosling.

Ryan Gosling is the star of the movie and he seems to have a decent range as an actor. You can put him in a movie as a sex doll that girls will dream about. You can put him in a movie where he happens to be somewhat passionate and upbeat. And you can put him in a movie where maybe he happens to be intentionally robotic. To call Ryan Gosling my favorite actor of all time is a stretch, but he is a true force in the industry. And when it comes to his portrayal of Neil Armstrong, overall it is really good, but I have a couple minor complaints. For one thing, Neil in this movie is incredibly stoic at times. If he was as stoic in this movie as he was in real life, then whatever, then my complaint will be taken off. That’s not to say he doesn’t show any emotion at all. He’s actually seen in the beginning of the film shedding tears. It’s a great performance, but part of me wonders how much Neil Armstrong would say it’s “him” had he been alive to see this picture come to life. Ah well, where’s Buzz Aldrin when you need him? Another minor complaint I have is a bit nitpicky, but Neil Armstrong was born and raised American, and yet they cast the very idea of the “Sexy Canadian Boy” Halloween costume. Again, nitpicky. It does not however change the fact that the interpretation of Armstrong is still a top-notch performance. Plus, it’s still a pasty white dude, so it’s not like they’re trying to make Neil Armstrong a woman or black and erase history by doing so.

Speaking of minor casting issues, I also should point out that Claire Foy (Unsane, The Crown), who plays Neil’s wife, Janet, is British. Let me just point out that much like Neil Armstrong, Janet was born and raised American. It’s still a great performance and BY FAR the best one in the entire film. I really hope Foy receives a Best Actress nomination. Several scenes from her add tons of emotional weight to the film and I can imagine in a way, back in the 1960s, her character would not only encapsulate the thoughts of just herself, but those people who are out of Neil’s family who have to watch the crew go to the moon. Granted, it’s a lot worse for her, because she can lose her husband, but still.

All my complaints in this movie are legit complaints for sure, but in reality, they are easily forgivable because they fall under the classification of “minor” or “nitpicky.” One small complaint I have is something that occurs towards the end of the film that I wonder if it actually happened. Without going into spoilers, when Neil Armstrong gets to the moon, he has an object with him that happens to be very significant. As far as I’m aware, there is no concrete evidence to this happening. If it did happen, cool. But if it didn’t, maybe it added some emotion, but there would also be that part of me who thinks that shouldn’t even be in the movie.

Speaking of objects on the moon, let’s get controversial! One report that has been going around about “First Man” is that there is no scene showing the American flag being planted on the moon. As someone who witnessed this movie, let me confirm to you all, THIS IS TRUE. Many conservatives for what I know are upset about this and they’re hoping this movie fails. Based on the box office for the opening weekend, it lost big time to “A Star Is Born” and “Venom,” which retained its first place spot for the second week in a row. By the way, f*ck “Venom.” I will say though, this is kind of a spoiler, but it’s not really going to affect your viewing experience, at least I don’t think. If it’s any consolation, the American flag is shown on the moon during the film. I can understand why people would be upset about this, but honestly I don’t really care. I live in America, and this is an American achievement, but at the end of the day, “First Man” is supposed to be a film, not a propaganda piece. Also, if you like your flags so much, let me just remind you that the astronauts have American flags on their spacesuits, and there’s actually a scene where an American flag is being raised. Also, I’ll be honest, I’m glad that someone like Damien Chazelle directed this movie as opposed to someone like Michael Bay. I say that because there would be an American flag overload to the point where the planting scene would involve Neil Armstrong breaking the laws of physics, jumping into space bumping into one planet into the next like a pinball. Once that’s all done, he flies back to the moon striking the surface with the flag like Link did to Ganon in “The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker.” Also for fun, we cut to explosions happening in Russia therefore symbolizing their loss in the space race. There are reasons why I wouldn’t mind seeing the flag planted in the film, but the direction Damien Chazelle took with the movie worked very well and made me not care about seeing the planting of the American flag. The emotional journey mattered more in the end to me than seeing a country’s representation, even if I do happen to be a part of that country. Plus, you also have to consider international audiences. How will they respond to this? I don’t know. There’s always room for experimentation. Even so, I guess it is not wrong to assume that international audiences will be able to recognize the accomplishment that the US made with the moon landing, but at the same time, since it is not their accomplishment, they’d probably find the scene less relatable. I really think I should do a separate post someday on why it might be a good idea to have the planting of the American flag shown in the movie and why it might not be a good idea. Now let’s move onto…

Screenshot (362)

SPACE.

Before we actually dive into my thoughts on the space scenes, I gotta say that I saw this movie with my mother and sister. I can understand why some people would have certain complaints but one that really stuck out to me is that my mother said the movie spends too much time in space. I find this amusing because “First Man,” after all, is a space movie. I’m not saying it’s invalid, each to their own, but I thought the space time was fine. And trust me, it does spend a bit of time. Aside from focusing on Apollo 11, the movie spends some time focusing on Gemini 8. I’m willing to bet this is where my mother complained. Although I appreciated that the movie decided to include that, because this establishes not only the dangers for anyone who has to go to space, but as far as Neil Armstrong goes, he had to experience said dangers before moving onto another dangerous mission that is amazingly daring, to the point where he might never see his wife and kids again. One thing I also admire about this scene is the music, which is very reminiscent of “2001: A Space Odyssey” when they play “The Blue Danube.” ALSO, THE SOUND WORK IS TOP-NOTCH! If this movie doesn’t win best director at the Academy Awards, it better get something in the sound categories because it is something worth hearing. While the movie is great overall when it comes to sound, in fact some of it reminded me of “Gravity,” one of the best scenes when it comes to sound comes after the lunar lander touches down on the moon.

In terms of sound, cinematography, and theatricality, the walking onto the moon is definitely one of the best scenes I’ve witnessed all year in a movie. And you even get an added bonus if you see this movie in IMAX. As you can see, the crew is getting ready, opening their hatch, as they are about to see the moon outside their craft. So you get to see the camera coming out, and BOOM! Silence. Scientifically accurate for sure, but that’s not the point. The effect that lack of sound has on the scene literally dropped my jaw. And as if that’s jaw dropping enough, the lunar sequences for this movie were shot on IMAX film. So once the camera comes out of the craft, we go from the aspect ratio we’ve been seeing for the entire movie so far to full fledged, screen-covering glory. WALL TO WALL. FLOOR TO CEILING. Looking at Neil Armstrong up close makes you feel like you are an ant compared to him. The screen dominated me in that moment. The way everything plays out in that from acting, directing, and camerawork just felt like I was in a museum looking at paintings instead of a movie. And another reason why I love this IMAX transition goes back to how this movie was shot on 16mm film. Everything looks fuzzy, it was somewhat of a more unsettling time back then. This takes all depression out of the equation and we have gone from a sad movie that felt like a soap opera, to the end of an epic. It’s one of the best movie transitions I’ve seen in recent memory, and some of the all time best use of an IMAX camera that I am aware of.

I will say that a number of movies shot with an IMAX camera happen to be ones I enjoy. Take the “Transformers” movies out of the equation however. On the subject of cinematography, something happens in this movie that made me realize how awesome this movie truly was. When it comes to filmmaking, one term I’ve always hated was “shaky cam.” But there are several scenes in this movie that actually use shaky cam, and it almost made me change my mind on it entirely! Shaky cam is probably a reason why some critics aren’t massive fans of certain action movies. Aside from hiding poor stuntwork, one reason why I imagine some people use shaky cam in their movies may be to heighten tension. I can’t really recall many moments where shaky cam increased tension for me. Here in “First Man,” there’s moments where shaky cam happens to be prominent and believe it or not, I am not bashing on it. A good movie can do things that people have seen before which have been done with care and everything works. A great movie can take something that might not be your thing and change your perspective on it. While I do enjoy space movies VERY MUCH, I don’t traditionally find myself bowing down to the gods of shaky cam. Shaky cam is a reason why I find shows like “Modern Family” somewhat off-putting. I honestly don’t know if I am overrecating, I wonder how other people would react to something like this, but this is just how I felt from my experience.

In the end, I wouldn’t call “First Man” an A+, but it sure comes close. This is by far one of my favorite movies of the year, and when it comes 2018’s new releases, “First Man” is up there with “Ready Player One” as one of my favorite theater experiences. It has the potential to shoot itself up to an A+ depending on replay value or depending on how I view this movie outside the theater, but in reality, from a critical point of view, while it has some minor things to complain about, there are really no glaring errors (then again, I don’t work for NASA, so science isn’t my biggest strong suit). What Damien Chazelle did with this movie is truly something to appreciate. The cast, while not technically completely matching with their counterparts were believable and added to the movie’s overall grit. The score is appropriate for the film and perhaps something maybe I’ll listen to for motivation. While there were not really any shots to pick out to say that they were really innovative for the most part, the cinematography in “First Man” is certainly something I hope not to forget sometime in the future. Also, if you can, please, go see “First Man” in IMAX. You’ll thank me later. I’m going to give “First Man” a 9/10.

Thanks for reading this review! For those of you who read my work often, you may be aware that I’ve gone to New York Comic Con. I went almost a couple of weeks ago, and don’t worry, a post on that is coming. I just need to put it together. I’m actually going to be in a hotel room in Connecticut this weekend because I’m going to see the Impractical Jokers live, so when I have some free time, or if I choose to be a madman and stay up all night (which would be appropriate because I’m in a casino), maybe I’ll work on this post then. As far as movie reviews go, I will say that my next pick is currently undecided, maybe I’ll go see “Bad Times at the El Royale,” “Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween,” maybe “Night School.” A good comedy is soothing every once in a while. Seriously though, I’m almost considering going to see “First Man” again sometime soon. It’s that good. Be sure to follow me on Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “First Man?” What did you think about it? Or, you know what? F*ck it. Was the moon landing faked? Please comment below, I would like your honest answers, I won’t judge (maybe). Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Won’t You Be My Neighbor? (2018): A Reminder of an Unfulfilled Childhood *SPOILERS*

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bmjm1ndg1mjuznf5bml5banbnxkftztgwntaxnjizntm-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” is directed by Morgan Neville (20 Feet From Stardom, The Music of Strangers) and stars Joanne Rogers, Betty Aberlin, McColm Cephas Jr., François Scarborough Clemmons, Yo-Yo Ma, Kailyn Davis, Joe Negri, David Newell and is a look behind the curtain of the life of Fred Rogers. If you don’t know that name, then you aren’t familiarized with children’s television programming from the 1960s or 1970s.

Going into “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?,” it was one of my most anticipated films of the year. I don’t traditionally review documentaries, I don’t usually watch documentaries, but this one, regardless of my intentions to review it, felt special on paper. I never had a childhood, for what I remember, where I was exposed to Mr. Rogers on television. To my knowledge, not many people today have that either. With today’s kids it’s mostly “Paw Patrol” or other things that happen to be similar to that. I remember my grandmother singing the theme to “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” as she was watching over me from time to time however. But watching “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” taught me the absolute specialty of “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,” which not only made me realize how great the documentary was, which by the way, it is, GO SEE IT NOW, but made me think that my childhood may have been… really s*itty.

Don’t get me wrong, my childhood was awesome. I went on several getaways, I went to amusement parks, I went to all sorts of malls, I enjoyed time with friends, but watching “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” would have probably taught me something I needed to know more. To be specific, the need to be nice to others. I was a stupid kid in elementary school (for the most part), I did a lot of things I really shouldn’t have done, and ultimately regret. Part of it almost makes me hate my life. While the movie tries to set a counterargument that maybe Fred Rogers made some kids feel more entitled than they need to be, I think that I would have had a better childhood if that were in my life, maybe even a better life in general. Let me tell you what I watched in my childhood. I watched “Power Rangers,” a flashy live-action hyper-mania f*ckstravaganza with explosions and people screaming for the sake of making noise. I watched all sorts of things that are based on “Hot Wheels” cars, which had tons of replay value, but I was more into racing than I was into inserting any kind of real world events into my head. I watched the newer seasons of “Spongebob Squarepants.” WHAT WAS I THINKING?! Granted in my preschool years, I watched some decent content regarding that age group, such as “Blue’s Clues” or “Dora the Explorer,” but as far as I recall, there was probably NOTHING like Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. It takes a concept that may sound corny, but kind of works! You have this guy who is on a low-budget set, with low-budget props, and has a show shot on low-budget film equipment (at least for some time), and lets people, although mainly children, know they are special the way they are. What really sets Mr. Rogers apart from other people in children’s television is his raw charm. You know how in religion there is one figure that everyone is guided to be? In this case, Mr. Rogers basically combines religion with the real world. I’m not gonna give my religious beliefs away, because that’s not exactly what I intended to do here on WordPress or Scene Before, but let’s just say, if I were a hardcore Christian and saw this movie having no idea who Mr. Rogers was, I’d say he’s quite possibly the closest person to qualify as the second-coming of Jesus.

In fact, to some people’s minds, they’d disagree, because Rogers was essentially someone who opened up his heart and loved everyone. Straight. Gay. Bi. White. Black. Young. Old. Boy. Girl. You name it. He was someone that just wanted to spread positivity, happiness, anything that associates with being a joyous person. This movie goes into detail about how some people were against Mr. Rogers for telling children they were special, saying that it either goes against traditional values or makes them bratty. Honestly, if I were a kid, being told that I’m special or a joy to have in this world would be amazing. Being told I’m a failure would only lower my confidence, not to mention my will to live. Handing down the necessary joy of life, no matter if it’s being given to a child who can take care of themselves or somebody else, is a pretty important task for parents or guardians to take on. Mr. Rogers almost comes off as if he is the ultimate parent. He’s very calm, he’s inviting, and he wants to hear what children have to say. In fact, a good number of the stories we consume nowadays happen to be stories of good vs. evil. I’m not saying these people are evil or anything, but to say that someone can’t be anything is wrong and diminishing on so many levels. Now if your kid tells you they want to be the world’s nastiest destroyer then that’s a different story, but if your kid wants to be something that can shed something positive, light, or joy in the world, you might as well help in getting them to their goal by supporting them, listening to them, and guiding them.

When it comes to the overall goal of “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?,” it tries to make Mr. Rogers look like the definition of a role model and a hint of guidance, and I’d say the movie did its job. Along the way, the movie tells the highlights of Rogers’ life, this includes “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” (of course), his sitcom “Old Friends… New Friends,” and how he broke ground in aspects regarding children’s television and the way we look at others. Mr. Rogers was a lifelong Republican, not to mention an ordained minister for a church. This guy was doing television in the 1960s and the 1970s, and for a guy to be doing something such as telling people it’s OK gay to be gay, not to mention sharing that statement to an audience alongside someone who actually is gay, is ballsy given both his background and the time which he lived. But he did it, and I appreciate the dude for it.

Speaking of ballsy, as the documentary went on, I discovered that Rogers really pushed the limits on children’s television without exactly coming off as dark. He talked to children about death! He talked about divorce! He’s basically a televised therapist that everybody didn’t need to travel outside their house every few months to see. I have divorced parents, and when they were separated, I went to a therapist to talk about my life during that sort of time, and I didn’t really feel so good. It’s hard to talk about, no matter who you are. But no matter the difficulty, Mr. Rogers was able to talk about it!

One of the best quotes I’ve heard in the movie, is something I can’t say word for word only because I’m not sure how it goes piece by piece, but it goes something like this:

“I believe silence is one of the greatest gifts we have.” -Fred Rogers

I can associate with that quote with just about any part of my life. I have sensitive ears, so therefore, I’m not fond of loud noises. I enjoy my alone time, I’m not saying having friends sucks, but I really admire alone time. I even grew to know that just because a movie is big and loud, doesn’t make it good. It can be good from being big and loud. A large number of movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe for example are explosive and can still maintain a feel of intelligence (for the most part), but some movies like those in the Michael Bay “Transformers” franchise can sometimes make you feel stupid because it’s nothing but noise. Silence can allow you to concentrate, dissect, and sometimes keep an audience in suspense. What Mr. Rogers was able to do with a show that the more I think about it, can associate with something such as peace and quiet, makes him all the more admirable.

Also, considering how nice and joyous Mr. Rogers presented himself both on “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” and in real life, I always think to myself, there’s nobody like him. Although one comment from an interviewee truly caught my attention, and it’s because he said the opposite of what I said. And maybe he’s right. This may not count for everyone, but for a number of people, we are all trying to be nice, a role model, and have a positive attitude. Rogers embodies all of those things. There aren’t really many people that *I* can think of that rank alongside Rogers in that sort of way. The closest I can think of are a few people such as Bill Nye, Curtis Armstrong (I’m biased here), and Robert Carradine (again, I’m biased). This documentary taught me that we need more people like Mr. Rogers. Maybe someone watching this will say that they want to be more like him, maybe they’ll say they had a life more like his, and if they’re like me, they’ll say they want to have a childhood with Mr. Rogers. As someone who thought the live-action “Alvin and the Chipmunks” movie was entertaining as a kid, I want the kid version of me to have Mr. Rogers to in their life to make them realize how wrong I was for thinking such a thing.

In the end, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” is one of the most amazing pieces of art I’ve witnessed not only this year, but this entire decade. It might even be in the conversation of possibly being my favorite documentary ever. I haven’t seen too many of them, I’ve seen a good number, but not a lot of them were epic. I must say, this was not epic. This was beyond words one could ever think of. I know that as a guy it makes people like me look like a wuss to cry at the movies, but from scene one, my eyes were watering. And I held all my tears in, but if I were Sadness from Pixar’s “Inside Out,” this would have been the most defining experience of my entire life. “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” is not just a reminder of the awesome person that Mr. Rogers is, it’s a reminder to be a decent human being, not to mention a reminder to be the best person you can be. I’m gonna give “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” a 10/10. Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I’m gonna have a couple more reviews coming up, such as my thoughts on “Uncle Drew,” and also my thoughts on “A Wrinkle In Time.” Be sure to stay tuned for those articles and more great content! I want to know, did you see “Won’t You Be My Neighbor??” What did you think about it? Or, did you grow up knowing the name Mr. Rogers? If so, can you tell me a bit about that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Will First Man Be Shown on IMAX 70mm Film? If So, Where?

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone! Jack Drees here! If you know me personally, you’d probably be well aware of my fanaticism for IMAX. I freaking love IMAX. At times, they’re brutal liars (if you don’t trust me, ask Aziz Ansari), but at the same time I can’t help but love them. They’ve partially contributed towards my love of film. I would love to make several movies and release them in the IMAX format, and even on IMAX film. Speaking of that, I got to ask something today in this post.

mv5bywfhzgvjmtatzdcwmc00yty3ltljywutnzriodzlowfknjezxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjmxote0oda-_v1_sy1000_cr006311000_al_

One movie I’m really looking forward to this year is “First Man.” This movie is being directed by Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La La Land), stars Ryan Gosling (Blade Runner 2049, Crazy Stupid Love) and Claire Foy (The Crown, Vampire Academy) and is based on the true story (depending on your knowledge or thoughts on various conspiracy theories) of the famous Apollo moon landing from 1969.

A new trailer just released for this movie and I’ll just say to you all right now that I have no intentions to do a review on it. However, there is one thing I caught at the very end of the trailer. One of the last pieces of text the trailer states is “Select Scenes Filmed with IMAX Cameras.” It doesn’t exactly specify what type of IMAX camera is specifically used to shoot the movie, but according to IMDb, the movie is partially being shot on what is referred to as an IMAX MSM 9802. This camera was used to shoot select scenes of various films including “The Dark Knight,” “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol,” and “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” This is an IMAX camera that is capable of shooting in 2D and 70mm. Therefore, “First Man” is being shot in IMAX 70mm, which makes me ask, “Will you be able to watch this in the IMAX 70mm format?”

According to IMDb, if you look in the technical specifications page for “First Man,” it’ll say that some scenes will be shown in a 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is the proper ratio for an IMAX theater with 70mm equipment that covers the entire screen. For those of you who are unfamiliar with IMAX technology, let me just inform you, if the year this movie happened to be coming out is a year such as 2014 and I found this info on IMDb, chances are I’d at most GUARANTEE you that this movie will be shown in the IMAX 70mm format. However, it’s not 2014, it’s 2018, so I can’t make any guarantees at this point. I say that because IMAX has a technology which has been steadily growing, which is their 4K laser projection system (picture up above). They’ve installed it on several screens around the world. Some of these screens include the TCL Chinese Theatre (Los Angeles, CA), Cineworld Leicester Square (London, UK), CGV Yongsan (Seoul, SK), Event Cinemas Queen Street (Auckland, NZ), Scotiabank Toronto (Toronto, Canada), Miramar IMAX (Taipei, Taiwan), and I even have one that’s about a ten minute drive from my house, the Sunbrella IMAX 3D Theater, located inside Jordan’s Furniture, in Reading, MA. I can pretty much guarantee that given today’s technological preferences that at least one laser theater will be showing the movie. I say that because IMAX, like most movie theater owners and operators, typically show their movies in some format related to digital projection. It’s simpler to operate, simpler to handle, and you don’t have to worry about any degradation of picture quality for one reason or another.

The IMAX laser system works on multiple types of IMAX screens, but one of its main purposes is to be a digital equal/replacement for IMAX’s 70mm film projectors. If you ask me, IMAX 70mm projectors are capable of showing clearer images than the company’s laser projectors, but that’s for another time. With that sort of idea in mind, that means if you put an IMAX laser projector in an older IMAX theater that contained a film projector prior to it, there’s a good chance that the laser projector was installed to play media and said media will be displayed in an aspect ratio that would have been shown the same way had IMAX kept their film projector. For those of you who do not know much about IMAX, the laser projection system IS NOT IMAX’s only digital projection system. They’ve had another one which they introduced in 2008, which is pretty much the reason why some people refer to the company as LIEMAX. IMAX has installed many of these all over the world, which started an enormous growth in IMAX theaters in multiplexes. However, the projector couldn’t show any images in the tradtional IMAX aspect ratio and when people watch something say, shot with IMAX cameras, it would be shown in a 1.90:1 aspect ratio. The IMAX laser system by the way, first began rolling six years after the first IMAX digital system was introduced, in December 2014.

In the year of 2018, we have yet to see one major Hollywood release be shown on IMAX film. Yes, “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” was shown in IMAX film this year, but that technically released in 2017. We have yet to get one big film release, I’m not talking about any of those IMAX documentaries, I’m talking about films that most of the public would see advertised on TV, shown in the IMAX 70mm format this year, and I believe there is no other film this year that is more qualified than “First Man.” This movie involves a rocket launch, takes place in space, looks very compelling, and was shot entirely on film, part of it with IMAX cameras.

One big question I have though is this. If this were to be shown on IMAX film, what would our options be for going somewhere to view the movie in that format? Because two major releases in IMAX theaters were shown in IMAX film last year, but one release was much wider than the other. The first release was “Dunkirk,” which was shown in 37 IMAX theaters with 70mm equipment. This included a variety of theaters from giant IMAXes in multiplexes, to museums, to standalone locations. The second release was “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” which as I state in one of my posts I did in October of last year, the number of theaters this movie happened to be shown in which was playing it in the IMAX 70mm format is less than the number of seasons in “Criminal Minds,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Supernatural,” and “NCIS.” If you want to get more specific, the movie was said to be shown in 11 theaters in the IMAX 70mm format. Also, not many of the places which the movie was to be shown appeared to be what one would call a traditional movie theater. Most of these were in museums.

With the upcoming release of “First Man,” I honestly don’t know what will happen when it comes to releasing it. This movie doesn’t come out until October 12, so there is plenty of time for something to be announced when it comes to where this film will be shown. Although with a film like this, I would certainly like to see it shown in more than just a select few IMAX 70mm theaters. If it can’t be as wide as “Dunkirk,” I would at least like it to be close to as wide of a release as “Dunkirk.” Because just like “Dunkirk,” I feel like this is one of those films that is literally made for movie theaters, and in a case like this, IMAX. As an audience member, it is the responsibility of the filmmakers and in a case like this, IMAX, to immerse me into the movie. I’ve experienced a rocket launch in the IMAX format, and I’ll even state, the IMAX 70mm format! A rocket launch is by far one of the most powerful things a man could ever witness. Just a two minute video of a rocket launching would be a great test video for the IMAX experience. Now if that is accompanied by a great story and interesting characters, you have something more nifty on your hands. So IMAX, please give this a wide release in your 15/70mm format, and if you want my preference on where to see it, I want to see it at the Providence Place Cinemas IMAX in Providence, RI. Just… Get crackin’.

If this does not get a wide release in IMAX 70mm, the least I ask is that this gets an IMAX 70mm release in some notable areas having to do with NASA or space exploration. But seriously, if you ask me, the wider the release, the better! So why be good when you can be better? Chop chop, our lives only last so long!

“First Man” is in theaters and IMAX everywhere on October 12th, and it is by far one of my most anticipated movies of the year. If you guys ever think about seeing it, I imagine this would be one hell of a ride in IMAX. Thanks for reading this post! This week I’ll be releasing at least couple of new reviews. I’ve got my review for “Tag” which I pretty much already finished, it just needs to be released once I’m allowed to share it to the public. I will also soon have my review for “Incredibles 2” which comes out later during the week, and if I can manage my time well enough, I might be able to insert my review for “Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” I just need to watch it from start to finish, gather my thoughts, and then unleash those thoughts to you all. If I don’t have it this week, I’ll probably have it next week because the week after I’ll be on vacation, and I’ll probably still be posting while I’m away if my creative juices are flowing, but there’s a good chance I’ll be watching the movie at home as opposed to a hotel. Stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, if you had to guess how many theaters happened to be releasing “First Man” in IMAX 70mm, what would your guess be? Or, what are your thoughts on the trailer we just got for “First Man?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

 

Molly’s Game (2017): Passable, but with “High MIstakes”

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bntkzmzrlyjetmtq5yi00owy3lwi0nzytngq4zdkzztu0m2iwxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymtmxodk2otu-_v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Molly’s Game” is directed by Aaron Sorkin (Steve Jobs, The Social Network) and stars Jessica Chastain (Interstellar, Zero Dark Thirty), Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, Thor), and Kevin Costner (Man of Steel, Dances with Wolves) in a movie based on a book of the same name. It’s about the true story of Molly Bloom, a former poker entrepreneur and Olympic-class skier who was charged with running the world’s most exclusive high-stakes poker game.

I haven’t really followed much of Aaron Sorkin’s previous work. This movie is actually his directorial debut, and if you have followed Sorkin’s work, you’d know he’s typically known for his writing. Sorkin is responsible for creating “The West Wing,” which he often wrote. As far as movies go, he has written “Moneyball,” “Steve Jobs,” “The Social Network,” “A Few Good Men,” and “Charlie Wilson’s War.” I was actually going to watch “Steve Jobs” in 2015 during its theatrical run, but I never got around to it. Nevertheless, I heard the fellow can write. Having seen this movie, I’d say he can direct too. I can appreciate the vision this movie contained. Going at a quick pace, all the while providing a serious tone. There were a couple of moments that I really liked from a lighting perspective as well. The colors just meshed together almost like a very small lens flare that didn’t feel obnoxious in any sort of way. As far as writing and editing goes, here are my thoughts.

I totally see what people are talking about when it comes to Aaron Sorkin and writing, the two go together like FedEx and that arrow between the “E” and the “x.” What’s that? You didn’t know about the FedEx arrow? Google the FedEx logo and observe it closely. The opening sequence of this film has Molly Bloom talking like I’m listening to what happens when an auctioneer and a motivational speaker combine into a single person. Not only was the diction well done, it was funny, it was informative, and it set a proper tone for the movie. This movie’s based on a book, and I apologize to books, but I never read the book for this film. I don’t know how similar this movie’s introduction is to the book, but if the writing resembles the book here, I’d say this is great writing in general. Props to both Bloom and Sorkin if that’s the case. Still, at the very least, props to Sorkin. I’ve heard a saying that the best directors make the best editors. As far as directing ability goes, this was mostly competent. I have a couple of issues, but this can apply to either the script or the editing instead of just directing.

A couple of shows that really make me uncomfortable are “The Office” and “Modern Family.” I heard a lot of people like both programs. Personally, I can’t watch them. Maybe I’ll give “The Office” a try because I hear a lot of folks talking about it like it’s the greatest thing between Netflix and the idea of Netflix and chill. Also, f*ck Netflix. However I don’t think I can watch “Modern Family” ever again. It’s not only unfunny despite how many people watch it and revered it is, but it’s also shot in a style that tries to make you feel like you’re there, but it just comes off like a student film to me. It almost reminds me of the shaky cam from “The Hunger Games!” “Molly’s Game” is not as bad, it’s not as shaky, it’s not as handheld, it works for what it’s doing. …For the most part. When it comes to editing, this movie cuts way too quickly sometimes. It tries to maintain this very quick style of filmmaking, and it just doesn’t work. I noticed one or two jumpcuts here as well. As far as writing goes, it’s tonally inconsistent. While most of the movie is fast and stays fast, it sometimes just slows down to a point where it’s horribly slow. Throughout the entire film, Jessica Chastain is narrating as Molly Bloom and it almost feels like something that should keep you going towards the edge of your seat. There are moments here that just don’t match what the movie feels like the entire time. It feels like a couple movies meshed into one. It’s like combining one movie, “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” with another movie, “Manchester by the Sea,” although it’s a million times happier. The editing combined with the screenplay is like a hotel room with a comfortable bed, no bugs, it’s got a clean carpet, the TV is 4K, everything looks nice, but the toilet isn’t working, the shower’s water system is screwed up, and the sink handles for hot and cold are grungy and hard to operate. It just all needs minor tweaking on perhaps major flaws before absolute perfection.

However let’s move our attention to the best part of the movie, Jessica Chastain as Molly Bloom. Some people may go see this movie for a number of reasons. Some people are interested in the story of Molly Bloom, some people like Aaron Sorkin’s writing, and some will say that the cast looks promising. I’ve observed Idris Elba and Kevin Costner in this film, and while both give competent performances, Jessica Chastain trumped them both. If the writing wasn’t excellent enough, this movie had an amazing actress to go off of it. I must say, despite my love for Jessica Chastain, I haven’t seen too many performances from her. However, much like the other movies where I saw Jessica Chastain performing, this is another fine example of how someone should act in a movie. They transform into a different person, and they allow the audience to see them as more than someone on a screen.

In the end, I got to say that “Molly’s Game” is not really a movie that I’d recommend to everyone, but I wouldn’t say to shy away from it either. It’s one of those movies that can impress you in a number of ways, but isn’t entirely screwed together to the point of perfection. I like the acting. I like the directing. I like the writing. However, the movie itself is sloppy when it comes to pacing. At times it wants to accelerate, and at others it wants to drag. There are times where I just nearly wanted to fall asleep, and I must have felt that during the fast parts due to the inconsistency of pacing. Although I will say this, Jessica Chastain f*cking rocks. I’m going to give “Molly’s Game” a 6/10. Thanks for reading this review! On Thursday, I’m going to start off my “Maze Runner” review series by talking about the first installment in the movie franchise, “The Maze Runner,” so look forward to that. Also, depending on what happens, tomorrow I’m going to upload a surprise post. I won’t tell what it is. But January 17th is a special day in my heart. That’ll be your hint. I might not post this, but that’s if I don’t finish it in a certain amount of time. Stay tuned for more reviews and other great content! Did you see “Molly’s Game?” What are your thoughts? How do you think Aaron Sorkin did as a first-time director? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Disaster Artist (2017): Oh Hai, James Franco!

Posted on by Jack Drees

mv5bognkmzlimgmtmdi5ni00otzkltgymtytnzk5zty1njvhyjvmxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyntazmty4mda-_v1_sy1000_sx675_al_

“The Disaster Artist” is directed by James Franco (Spider-Man, 127 Hours), and is based on a true book written by Greg Sestero. This movie also stars James Franco alongside his brother, Dave Franco (Neighbors, Now You See Me), and Seth Rogen (Sausage Party, Pineapple Express). “The Disaster Artist” revolves around the making of the 2003 disasterpiece of a film, “The Room.” The book which this movie is based on is written by a cast member of “The Room” who played the character of Mark (played by Dave Franco here). So, essentially Greg is one of the main characters, and he meets Tommy Wiseau (played by James Franco) in an acting class. The two form a bond as time passes, which leads them to try tackling their dreams in Hollywood together.

I just want to get two things out of the way. I’ve never read “The Disaster Artist.” I almost picked it up once, but I put it back before taking it. However I did watch “The Room.” I managed to find it on YouTube and someone had a post showing the movie from beginning to end. I watched it recently and I TOTALLY see what everyone is talking about. From the cheesy and poorly written dialogue, the so-called acting, and the establishing shots of San Francisco that feel like something out of say, “The Golden Girls,” this movie is a mess, but it was so f*cking fun. The movie itself, is capable of having most of its viewers say it’s terrible, but at the same time, it kind of has a feeling that other bad movies don’t give you. This is more along the lines of a movie like “Batman & Robin,” where it’s bad, but you can also have some fun watching it because of all the cheese. It’s not like watching “The Emoji Movie.” For the record, that movie did not suck ass, it sucked EVERY ass. “The Disaster Artist” is like neither of those films. This is because “The Disaster Artist” is definitely one of 2017’s best films! Not only that, but it also has to be one of the most ironic films I’ve ever seen! “The Room” is in a word, abominable. “The Disaster Artist” is in a word, admirable. It’s amazing how “The Disaster Artist,” a movie based on the making of one of the worst movies ever made, specifically the kind where it’s so bad that you have to experience it, became one of this year’s best movies, a film so good that you have to experience it. And I did. I’m just gonna warn you, I’m gonna be digressing here, and it’ll be a matter of time before my actual review of the movie appears on here. And I know a reason why a lot of people are here is to read my thoughts on “The Disaster Artist,” not to hear about my personal life. So if this bores you, makes you want to stab yourself with a knife, encourages you to go on a killing spree, or makes you want to jump out a window, DON’T DO THOSE THINGS, and instead, either stop reading the post and rethink what you’re doing in life, or just skip ahead to the next paragraph where I get back on track. So let’s move on.

I’m a high school student currently living in eastern Massachusetts. It took me three weeks to see this movie. I wanted to see it right away, but I had other things going on at the time. Then “winter break” came, note the quotation marks, stating sarcasm of how my winter break lacked any time to sit down and relax. Due to a complicated schedule, I was somewhat worried that I wouldn’t get to see this. I did however once time was on my side, not to mention my father’s. There were barely any times available and the closest town I could go see the movie was Somerville. I don’t usually go to Somerville to see a movie, I’ve only done it twice. In fact, I barely go to Somerville period! But I did it, because I was committed. That and I had gift cards to AMC Theatres that I felt would be useful for an occasion such as this. Somerville is nearby as far as I’m concerned but I barely go anywhere that’s urban, I’m usually in the suburbs when I go to movie theaters. It’s easier parking-wise, it’s easier in terms of traffic, not to mention there are theaters that are closer in terms of distance and time. I like the AMC in Somerville better than some theaters I go to (except price-wise), but I think the auditoriums are nice and the sound’s amazing. Traffic and time to get to the theater weren’t an issue for my father and I. Parking almost did however. My father’s vehicle can’t fit in garages, and admittedly, I didn’t mention to him that Assembly Row, the plaza where the theater happened to be located, was mainly garage based. There is parking available in non-garage areas, but it’s a busy place, not to mention it was a Saturday night and the following day was New Year’s Eve. The unusual trip to Somerville, was worth it from the quality of the movie alone.

Out of all the films I’ve seen this year, this one is BY FAR the funniest. Not only that, but it also managed to be rather serious. One thing that I imagine some people who know about “The Room” might have expected walking into this film was the possibility that it might mock Tommy Wiseau to the tenth degree. The movie, in terms of its screenplay, makes almost anything Tommy does on screen hysterical, but I wouldn’t say it makes fun of him. Tommy, at the time which this movie takes place, is a mystery man. He goes on saying to Greg Sestero that he can’t talk about his interactions with Tommy to anyone. We as viewers don’t even know that much about his background. We don’t know how the money that went into the making of “The Room” appeared. It’s explained that this movie took $5 million to make. That’s what I recall the film’s screenplay suggesting, but according to IMDb it cost an estimated total of $6 million to make the flick. Speaking of IMDb, if you look at Tommy Wiseau’s page, it says he was born on October 3rd, 1955 in Poznag, Poland. According to the Wikipedia page dedicated to Tommy Wiseau, it says he gave an age in interviews after the release of “The Room” that would suggest he’s either born in 1968 or 1969. He claimed to have lived in France a long time ago, he grew up in New Orleans, and he had an entire family in Chalmette, Louisiana. Greg Sestero’s identically titled book, which James Franco suggested in an interview based on the words of Tommy is “40% true,” suggested that his brother’s girlfriend obtained copies of Wiseau’s immigration papers, which said Tommy was born earlier than he claimed. Rick Harper, AKA the creator of “Room Full of Spoons,” a recent documentary based on the making of “The Room,” did research on Tommy Wiseau’s background, coming to the conclusion that Tommy is Polish and originally from the city of Poznan. In November 2017, Tommy confirmed in an interview he was originally from Europe. The following month, he was interviewed by Howard Stern. He mentioned he speaks French and happens to be Catholic. While we may be progressively getting more and more information, the man’s still a mystery, and the movie does a very good job at telling that to its viewers.

Just for your information, the earliest this film actually released was on March 12th, 2017. According to IMDb, it was a work-in-progress at the time. I can’t say how much of the film was released to the public, if it wrapped it’s filming entirely, how much editing got done, none of that, but it was a work-in-progress. This was shown at the time to those who went to “South by Southwest.” The next release was on September 11th at the Toronto International Film Festival, and IMDb doesn’t have it labeled as a work-in-progress unlike the release for South by Southwest. The movie for what I recall, never mentions Poznan, or Poland in general for that matter. Despite the film lacking that detail, it does a fantastic job of explaining the total mystery that is Tommy Wiseau.

Speaking of Tommy Wiseau, let’s talk about him as a character, not to mention the guy who plays him. Tommy’s played by James Franco, who also directed this film. This is without a doubt, one of the best performances ever given by James Franco. As mentioned, Tommy Wiseau is mysterious, and Franco captured that quite well. Franco also had an accent that Tommy gave all the time, and he didn’t sound like James Franco like you’d hear in content such as “Freaks and Geeks” and “Spider-Man,” where does give passable performances, nothing groundbreaking, but you can still see that shred of Franco. Here, he turns into Tommy, giving perhaps my favorite performance of the year. There are a number of performances I admired in 2017. Some of my favorites include Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker in “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard in “Blade Runner 2049,” Ryan Gosling as K in “Blade Runner 2049,” Ansel Elgort as Baby in “Baby Driver,” Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman in “Wonder Woman,” Tom Glynn-Carney as Peter in “Dunkirk,” Fionn Whitehead as Tommy in “Dunkirk,” Jayma Mays as Dana Sibota in “American Made,” and Holly Hunter as Beth in “The Big Sick.” I just saw this film, so this could change, but James Franco as Tommy Wiseau might be better than just about every single one of these performances I’ve listed. Am I overhyping this? I really don’t think so! It might be a tie between this and the recently mentioned performances by Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, and Mark Hamill until further notice. The future will probably provide more certainty.

In fact, in terms of direction, James Franco outdone himself as well! “Spider-Man 2” may be my favorite film with James Franco in it, but out of all the films he’s worked on, this may be the one which James as an individual worked the hardest on. All of the actors seemed like they had no problems on set while they played people who had problems on set. The film is well shot and well lit. In fact, towards the end of the movie, it actually shows “The Room” during its premiere, and not long after that’s over, we cut to two side-by-side moving images. One is actual footage from “The Room” and another is recreated footage, which was specific for this movie. That footage contained actors playing the characters originally played by other actors. Some examples include Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games, Journey to the Center of the Earth) as Denny (originally played by Philip Haldiman), Zac Efron (Neighbors, High School Musical), who played Chris-R (originally played by Dan Janjigian), Ari Graynor (Bad Teacher, I’m Dying Up Here), who played Lisa (originally played by Juliette Danielle), Dave Franco who played Mark (originally played by Greg Sestero), and let’s not forget James freaking Franco, who played Johnny (originally played by Tommy f*cking Wiseau). Is this my favorite film of the year in terms of direction? I wouldn’t say that, but it is close however.

Going into this film, I knew a lot about “The Room,” but based on various scenes, I picked up on some things I didn’t expect to pick up on involving “The Room” as a movie. You know how you notice an extended amount of the movie’s runtime, the characters are playing football? This movie kind of goes into that.

This movie is more than just something that’s telling the story of the production behind another movie. It’s also a story about friendship. As mentioned, Tommy Wiseau isn’t being mocked throughout this picture, and I really appreciate the film going in that direction because it made you understand Tommy as a person. Not only that, but this movie also has a major focus on Dave Franco’s character of Greg Sestero. This is almost a lot like “Lord of the Rings” in ways. Think of Tommy Wiseau as Frodo and Greg Sestero as Sam. Tell me that comparison is terrible. They’re there for each other, they respect each other, they even do a pinkie swear in the film, which occurs more than once to be accurate. As friends, they decide to make a movie together.

As Tommy and Greg make “The Room,” it’s clear that they don’t do know s*it on how to make a movie. When the two are trying to get cameras to shoot the movie, they decide to buy them, not rent them. While buying cameras isn’t exactly something that hasn’t been done for movies before, it’s traditional for people to rent them. Not to mention, when they’re asked if they want 35mm or HD, they respond saying they want both types of cameras. They’re lit differently, they work non-identically, and it might result in a weird final product depending on how things go. Overall, their friendship is shown in this film to the tenth degree and I love it.

In the end, “The Disaster Artist” takes an absolutely horrible film, and incorporates it into a different, astoundingly incredible film. The story behind “The Room” is honestly, a movie I never asked for, but once I heard about it, and saw the teaser trailer for it back in July, I was instantly in anticipation mode. On paper, this idea sounded amazing. As a final product, this idea is even better. Before I give my final verdict, I’m gonna let you in on a little fact. My dad and I saw this movie together, he went to see this film without watching, or even knowing all that much about “The Room.” He walked out of the theater alongside me, saying he enjoyed the film. So ultimately, you don’t need to watch “The Room” to appreciate this film. You can do it if you want to, which I must say if you do, is an experience, but it’s not necessary. However, I imagine at least knowing about “The Room” or watching it might add it a bit to the movie. With that being said, I loved this movie and it’s undoubtedly one of the best of the year. I’m going to give “The Disaster Artist” a 10/10. One last thing before I go on with a wrap-up, this movie has an end credit scene, so stick around after the credits if you don’t want to miss that. Anyway, thanks for reading this review, this is one of my favorite movies of the year, and speaking of that, once 2018 starts, one of the earliest published posts on this blog will be a countdown of my top 10 BEST movies of 2017. This movie will have a spot on the list for sure. I won’t say which, because it could change, plus I might go see one more 2017 movie in the theater and review it. That potential movie by the way, is “Downsizing.” One list I assure you this movie won’t be on, is my top 10 WORST movies of 2017, which I plan on releasing after I reveal my top 10 BEST list. Stay tuned for more reviews, and also stay tuned for those upcoming countdowns! I can’t wait to finally release them, because I have so much fun making them! I want to know, did you see “The Disaster Artist?” What do you think about it? Did you see “The Room?” What are your thoughts on that? Or, what are some movies that you personally think are so bad that they are actually good? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

(FROM THE ROOM)
JOHNNY: I did not her, it’s not true! It’s bulls*it! I did not hit her! (throws water bottle) I did *not*. Oh hi, Mark.

You can laugh, you can cry, you can express yourself, but please don’t hurt each other. –Tommy Wiseau