Book

Poor Things (2023): Emma Stone Delivers a Career-Best Performance in This Wildly Entertaining Mish Mash of Genres

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Poor Things” is directed by Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite, The Lobster) and stars Emma Stone (The Favourite, The Amazing Spider-Man), Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight, The Avengers), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Ramy Youssef (Ramy, Mr. Robot), Christopher Abbott (Sanctuary, Girls), and Jerrod Carmichael (The Carmichael Show, Lucas Bros Moving Co.). This film is based on a book by Alasdair Gray and it is about Bella Baxter, a woman whose body just so happens to be revived as a result of a scientific experiment conducted by the eccentric Dr. Godwin Baxter.

I cannot explain this film’s concept justice. It is not that I do not know what it is about. But even before going to see it, I knew certain things about it that would have made for awkward conversation or have ruined the somewhat vague nature of the film’s marketing. On the surface, the film seems to give enough away. Basically, a woman who happens to be brought to life through science experiences her definition of what it means to live. I think that is a great way to describe this movie without being too detailed, or in some cases, overly graphic. The concept is interesting to say the least. But as far as I am concerned, it was being helmed by someone who I did not completely trust.

One of my least favorite films of 2018 was “The Favourite.” Of that year’s slate of Academy Award Best Picture nominees, that movie was by far the one I considered to be the worst. That film was directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. Other than the fact that I found the film to be a uniquely boring waste of time, it gave me a bad impression of the director to the point where I neglected visiting some of his earlier films. I have heard decent things about “The Lobster” and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer.” But I refused to watch those because I was so turned off by “The Favourite.” As I have said previously on Scene Before, first impressions matter. But I watched the trailer for “Poor Things” and found myself hypnotized, but also with a sense of hesitancy in the back of my mind. But I thought “Poor Things” was worth checking out because much like “The Favourite” five years ago, “Poor Things” has been receiving tons of positive word of mouth. Plus, if Emma Stone continues to trust Lanthimos, maybe I should too.

So, how was the movie? I am very pleased to say that this is a banger of a film. It is not in my top 10 of the year, but it is excellent. I am immensely pleased and surprised by how this film turned out. It is wacky, it is weird, it is a feast for the eyes and ears. Yorgos Lanthimos undoubtedly has a unique style to his filmmaking. But in some ways, this kind of reminded me of a Wes Anderson film. Its color palette is particularly striking, the production design is a perfect blend between reality and fantasy, and the dialogue is almost like an enhancement on everyday life. I might not come across people talking the way these characters do sometimes, but I assure you it makes complete sense within the context of the movie and its universe.

One of the reasons why this film failed to reach the mark of being in my top 10 films of the year is because it starts kind of rough. It takes a bit for the movie to get going, despite inklings of intrigue. There are a couple of moments that I found to be an eyesore. In a movie full of eye candy, there are moments where I found something in the frame quite disgusting to the point where I could not help but wince or look away. It is a bit of a balancing act, really.

Part of the movie is in black and white, and then there is a portion of it that is in color. There were some mixed bags when it came to the black and white scenes. Once we get to the color scenes, that is when the movie unleashes its best material. It is creative, insane, and even with its strange tendencies, everything makes sense. I found every single thing in this film convincing. That said, there are times where the pacing is a tad uneven. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but it is noticeable.

The ensemble of the film is honestly a contender for the best of 2023. To me, it is up there with “Barbie,” “Oppenheimer,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” and “The Holdovers” in terms of being a fine mix between star power, acting ability, and instant charm from everyone involved. Mark Ruffalo has a number of shining scenes that could potentially warrant some extended talk this awards season. Willem Dafoe, per usual, gives everything his all here. During the latter half of the film, I was heavily entranced by Kathryn Hunter as Swiney. The entire cast in this movie is great, but the star of the show, literally and figuratively, is none other than Emma Stone.

Talk about a marvelous triumph of a performance! Emma Stone nails Bella Baxter throughout this entire film. I looked back at Emma Stone’s IMDb and was reminded of some of her career highlights. Of course as a comic book movie enthusiast, I know she played Gwen Stacy in “The Amazing Spider-Man” and its sequel. She did a good job in those films despite them not being up to snuff. She also did one of the better coming of age films of the 2010s, “Easy A,” where she was funny and charming. I liked her in the “Zombieland” movies. Of course she was great in “La La Land.” I even liked her in “The Favourite” despite my negative thoughts on the movie. Given time to marinate, I have to say Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” trumps all of her past work that I have seen. I honestly cannot think of a performance of hers I liked more. “La La Land” comes close, but Stone’s performance in “Poor Things” is comparatively transformative, it is otherworldly. It something that I could have never imagined seeing in my entire life, especially from someone like her. I am not saying Stone is not a talented actress. There is a reason why she has an Oscar on her mantle. But this is a performance that takes what I know about Emma Stone as a person, as an actress, as someone who has seen her in certain movies, and completely subverts my expectations. As I watch this movie, I of course know it is Emma Stone in front of the camera. Her face has become rather recognizable over the years. In fact, even though I have not seen the movie, Stone may come off as less recognizable in Disney’s “Cruella” based on what I have witnessed through images and marketing. But as I watch this movie, despite the low difficulty of realizing the talent in front of the camera happens to be Stone physically, it is a bit harder to conclude that it is her mentally.

Part of what makes her performance so riveting and exciting is how her character easily blends in to the world around her. The script is written in such a way that I would not call it fantasy, but it certainly is not a part of our reality either. The film, kind of like “Everything Everywhere All at Once” meshes so many genres and ideas together to the point where it practically forms a genre of its own. Bella Baxter is one of the most unique characters I have seen all year, and she comes from an equally one of a kind piece of art. And that is what this movie is. Art. I was transfixed by this in the same way some may be transfixed by the Mona Lisa. Again, this is not to say “Poor Things” is one of the year’s best movies, but it is certainly one of the boldest and brightest.

While Bella Baxter might not be my favorite character in a movie I have seen this year, I need some time to think on that front. Baxter is nevertheless in contention to be, idealistically, the most fascinating protagonist created for the screen this year. She has a sympathetic personality, but she also has the mind of a young child and a teenager all wrapped into one person. With those last two ideas, we see a bit of a transition between them, but they are still interlinked somehow as the movie goes. The film is an entertaining study on what happens if you put someone as eccentric as Bella Baxter into our society, or some variant of it. What would she do? How would she behave? This is basically a fish out of water story. And while the fish out of water idea has been done time and time again, I imagine stories like this one happen to factor into why the idea continues to be unleashed in several projects. It is a tried and true method of storytelling that may be familiar, but if you could your own spin on it, it may be worth seeking out. And speaking of things that are worth seeking out, if you have time on your hands and you have not seen “Poor Things” yet, make an effort to see it at some point. Not only is it a great movie, it is one of the most welcome, monumental surprises of 2023. I know a lot of people were looking forward to this film. I was not one of them. If anything, I almost rolled my eyes knowing it exists. But with one AMC A-List punch later, I can say this is one of the better movies of the year.

In the end, “Poor Things” is a great turnaround for Yorgos Lanthimos. This movie took me from resisting his past work to making me want to see more of it. Emma Stone is better than she has ever been. If she is not nominated for an Oscar this season my jaw will be on the floor. I do not know of any actress I could see beating her this year. This is a once in a lifetime performance as far as she is concerned. The film is very funny. There are a lot of stellar lines from various characters. Bella Baxter’s mannerisms and quirks are wonderfully distinguished and brilliantly written throughout the picture. The movie does a good job at splicing all sorts of ideas at the wall and having most of them stick. The pathos was off and on. I do not think I am going to remember “Poor Things” through much of an emotional connection, but again, the comedy worked quite a bit so that makes up for it. The sets are detailed and colorful. I could not take my eyes off of some pieces. And if it were not for some occasional roughness in the first act, this film would probably make my top 10 of the year. You never know though, I could change my mind. I just saw the film. That said, as far as I am concerned, I am glad I saw it. If Lanthimos and Stone reunite in the future, I cannot wait to see what these two do next. I am going to give “Poor Things” an 8/10.

“Poor Things” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, why not check out some of my other ones? Just recently I did reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” “Migration,” and “Wonka.” Check those out when you have a chance! Also, I will soon be reviewing the new romcom “Anyone But You.” That will be up later this week. Also coming soon, I will be announcing my top 10 best and worst movies of 2023. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Poor Things?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Yorgos Lanthimos movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Wonka (2023): A Sweet But Tired Prequel Whose Strength Comes from Old Tricks

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Wonka” is directed by Paul King (Paddington, Space Force) and stars Timothée Chalamet (Dune, Call Me by Your Name), Calah Lane (This Is Us, Kidding), Keegan-Michael Key (Toy Story 4, Keanu), Paterson Joseph (Timeless, Peep Show), Matt Lucas (Come Fly with Me, Little Britain), Matthew Baynton (Ghosts, The Split), Sally Hawkins (Godzilla, The Shape of Water), Rowan Atkinson (Johnny English, The Lion King), Jim Carter (The Good Liar, Downton Abbey), Olivia Colman (The Favourite, The Mitchells vs. the Machines), and Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Joneses Diary). This film is about a young Willy Wonka who tries to open a chocolate shop in the hopes of making his dreams a successful reality. He must also deal with the greed of a chocolate cartel that looms over him.

I absolutely adore “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” When I was seven years old, I would watch that film almost every other night. I was equally as fascinated by some of Roald Dahl’s books, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” included. And if you all must know, I did watch the Tim Burton “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and while many of you will probably spew pitchforks at me, I do not just like the film, I kind of love it. It is simmered with the dark vibes of Wonka himself in every scene. Danny Elfman’s score is a banger. I really liked Freddie Highmore as Charlie. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka leaves a little to be desired though, that’s the one big downside. Both films, especially the latter, make me want to stuff my face in chocolate. That’s how good those films are.

Thus far, we have had a couple of “Wonka” features that I tended to enjoy, so when I heard they were doing this new one with Timothée Chalamet, I was onboard. He is one of the best young talents working today. He has range. He has a natural look to him. So I was curious to see what he can do in a film like this. The great news is that Chalamet slays in his performance. As far as the Wonka character goes, he is significantly better than Johnny Depp. He is no Gene Wilder, but one thing to note about these two roles is that they are basically interconnected. This is set long before the events of the original “Chocolate Factory” story and the film does a decent job at making these two interpretations interlink. They don’t feel like the exact same character, but when it comes to a bridge in the gap between these two, it is filled exquisitely. Chalamet’s take on Willy Wonka matches his younger age, upbeat personality, and the dreams that clog his mind. Both Wonkas emit a sense of wonder and joy in their mannerisms, but as I watch Chalamet’s take and think about him, he seems to have more of a heart and significantly more patience than Wilder’s. Credit is due to Paul King as well for his stellar direction, as it felt not only distinctive, but effective enough to allow Chalamet to bring one of the year’s better performances.

Unfortunately, the film is not all pure imagination. In fact, the best parts of the movie to me, are mostly those in reference to nostalgia or things that came before in say “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Pretty much everything that is new feels like a far cry.

Much like “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” “Wonka” is a musical. And there are callbacks to songs from the 1971 classic. The highlight of the film for me is the new take on the Oompa Loompa songs. They have new lyrics, new visuals, the whole nine yards. I thought those were well done, and it also helps that Hugh Grant sells the Oompa Loompa character to a tee.

The Hugh Grant Oompa Loompa might be my favorite character in the movie partially because of how Grant voices him. There is a certain snark factor to this character that I immediately welcomed. He also allowed for one of the better gags in the film during the second half. It is in the trailer, but having seen it in the film, it worked for me.

But with that Oompa Loompa bit aside, most of the musical numbers in this movie are some of the most forgettable and bland I have seen in ages. These are some of the most uninteresting musical numbers I have come across since 2021’s “Dear Evan Hansen.” As a movie, I liked “Wonka” better, but as a musical, this movie fails. Sure, there are rhymy timey lyrics, a lot of excuses for spectacles, all that jazz. That is what I come to expect in many musicals. But it is not a matter of it being in the movie, it is how it is done in the movie. I just wish the musical bits could have been done a little better.

The best way to describe “Wonka” to someone who has not seen the movie is that it is basically a Saturday morning cartoon come to life. Given the family friendly nature of the film and the musical aspect, that should not come as a surprise. In fact, Roald Dahl’s work, which this film is inspired by, has a very animated feel to it. Unfortunately though, if I were seven years old, I do not think I would be as transfixed by “Wonka” as I would hope to be. Maybe it would be one of those movies like “Attack of the Clones” that I like as a kid but grow up to realize it is not as good as I thought it was. To be honest, it is quite bland, it is a little boring at times. In fact, much like “Dear Evan Hansen,” I feel like the movie forces itself to be a musical at moments where it is better off staying closer to reality.

Sticking with the cartoony vibes, the antagonists of the film, specifically the chocolate cartel, feel rather mustache twirly. The movie does a terrible job at making these three look intimidating. The movie asks me to see them as bad people. And yes, objectively they are, but it is a matter of execution. There is almost no word I could use to describe this cartel other than unamusing. If anything, going back to the idea of “Wonka” basically being a live action cartoon, I theorize this film would be a lot better if they just went for the cartoon route and just animated it from start to finish. Heck, the musical scenes would pop more. The characters would come off as more appealing. In fact, many of the supporting characters like Bleacher (Tom Davis) and Mrs. Scrubbit (Olivia Colman) feel like they would lend themselves better to that style. If I had my way, I almost would want to see a 2D style animated movie set in this universe. I could imagine enormous potential with that concept. Unfortunately though, I don’t know how it would do at the box office, it would probably be a lot harder to market. But if word of mouth is good, maybe it would be worthwhile.

But if I have to be honest, the dialogue is unmemorable, the humor is metza metza, and the only performances in the movie I am going to fondly remember just so happen to be Timothee Chalamet as Willy Wonka and Calah Lane’s charming portrayal of Noodle. Both of those actors are the highlights of the film. They don’t always have the best chemistry, but going back to the dialogue, I am sure if I liked the dialogue better, maybe their chemistry would have worked better. Both actors seem to have done their best with the material handed to them. And as far as I am concerned, I have done my best on getting through this movie to call it one of the most average watches of the year.

In the end, “Wonka” was quite disappointing. The “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” property was a big part of my childhood. Unfortunately this latest addition to it is nowhere near as magical or scrumdiddlyumptious. When I watched the 1971 and 2005 Roald Dahl book adaptations, it made me want to eat chocolate afterwards. I was a kid in a candy store. This latest prequel made me feel like an old man getting ready for my latest shouting event directed at a cloud. Paul King likely put his heart and soul into this project, but it unfortunately resulted in something that was poorly paced, uneven, and barely watchable. There are better movies to watch at the cinema this holiday season, or you can just stay at home and watch the other films this property has delivered over the years. I would recommend those over this one. I am going to give “Wonka” a 5/10.

Also, we have had two adaptations of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” some other random takes on the property over the years, this prequel, and yet I have not seen a single “Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator” movie. Life is funny, isn’t it? Then again, having read both the “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” books, the original appears more cinematic as it progresses, but that’s probably just the way I see it for now.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Illumination’s “Migration.” Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” and “Poor Things.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Wonka?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Willy Wonka” or “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Ferrari (2023): Adam Driver Shines in a Flick That Cannot Quite Get Into Gear

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Ferrari” is directed by Michael Mann (The Last of the Mohicans, Heat) and stars Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Marriage Story), Penélope Cruz (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Nine), Shailene Woodley (Divergent, Dumb Money), Sarah Gadon (Enemy, Dracula Untold), Gabriel Leone (Dom, Hidden Truths), Jack O’Connell (Skins, Godless), and Patrick Dempsey (Enchanted, Grey’s Anatomy). This film is a biopic about Enzo Ferrari’s mission to keep his auto company from failing as he puts it in a treacherous territory. A thousand mile race in Italy.

Sport movies have not always been my forte. Then again, sports in general have not always been my forte. But if you guys have been following me for a bit then you’d know that one of my favorite sport films I reviewed on this blog, not to mention one of my favorite sport films that come to mind, is James Mangold’s “Ford v Ferrari.” That film is an adrenaline-fueled race to the finish if there ever was one. And that is cemented by great performances, stunning soundwork, and a narrative that had me on the edge of my seat. It was easily one of the best films of that year and it ended up scoring a couple Jack Awards as well.

But with another awards season on the rise, it is time to recognize one of its fiercest contenders, “Ferrari.” I had little interest in “Ferrari” until I saw the trailer. This looked like a hard-hitting story that would fire on all cylinders and deliver on drama and tension. Adam Driver looked like he was going to dominate the lead role and I was there. That said, I did not know when I would end up seeing it because it comes out in December and there are so many things to which in the span of that time. Plus I have to get my best and worst movies of the year lists out the following month, I am doing work on the next Jack Awards, and it is heavily triggering my average at best multitasking skills. But I had the privilege of checking out a free early screening in Dolby in Boston recently, so I got to see the film long before it hits theaters.

Now, there is a certain thrill that comes with getting to see a movie this early. And the fact that the studio is letting people watch it this long before the release date says a lot about their faith in the project. Having seen “Ferrari,” I am sure it will hit a lot of people the right way. But it doesn’t mean that was the case for yours truly.

“Ferrari” is by no means an awful movie, but if we were to make a comparison, I would easily recommend “Ford v Ferrari” over this new Michael Mann effort. That said, I do not think Michael Mann would be completely insulted with this sentiment. After all, in addition to his efforts here, he is an executive producer on “Ford v Ferrari.” He gets to brag about having both movies on his resume.

My biggest problem with “Ferrari” is the characters. I did not outright hate anyone on this film’s roster, but much of the film involves a series of racers participating in the 1957 Mille Miglia. Ultimately, we end up spending a good amount of time with them, so it disappoints me to say that I failed to find myself attached to any one of them. I know this movie is not called “The Drivers of the Mille Miglia” but when the movie features them as prominently as it does, I hope to find myself endlessly attached to at least one driver. Much of the film is about Enzo Ferrari, and some of it lends itself to fascinating storytelling, whereas other moments tend to fall by the wayside.

That said, even with the character flaws in mind, I will not deny that the film puts the pedal to the metal and brings forth some of the best acting I have seen in a movie this year. Of course the film has recognizable stars like Shailene Woodley, Penelope Cruz, and Patrick Dempsey, all of whom are really good. But the film, to my lack of surprise, is as good as it is because Adam Driver gives it his all in the lead role. I could honestly see him getting an Oscar nomination this year for his efforts. Of Driver’s resume, this performance is one of his more chameleon-esque efforts. And a lot of it not only has to do with his mannerisms, his voice, his presence, part of it has to do with the attention to detail given to him on his costuming and makeup. Much like some of my other favorite actors, Driver has always oozed charisma on screen, even when he is in an inferior “Star Wars” movie. But of Driver’s roles, this is one of the first I remember seeing where he does not completely look like himself. I’ve seen him in a number of films. “Lincoln,” “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote,” “Marriage Story,” “The Last Duel.” He has often maintained a certain look to him that I tend to notice from one role to the next. Even in his better performances, I am reminded of how much I enjoy Driver’s presence once I see his recognizable face. In this film, I don’t necessarily see Driver. I see someone else.

When it comes to the film, Adam Driver is quite literally the driving force in more ways than one. He is really good in the lead role and he is surrounded by competent performances all around. But the story itself failed to garner any ongoing emotion and interest from me. There was a center of the movie per se, but not so much a core. Despite those words being similar, I think there is a difference here. The movie centers around Enzo Ferrari, but it does not give me a core reason to admire anyone on screen. Or at least not one that remained on my mind long after leaving my screening.

Much like “Ford v Ferrari,” the sound in “Ferrari” is quite good. Not as good if you ask me, but it appears to take a different approach. The way I interpreted the sound between its editing and mixing in “Ford v Ferrari” is something equivalent to a fantasy. The movie is based on true events, but when I heard that sound, it almost came off like a hyperactive reality. The sound, not to mention atmosphere, of “Ferrari” feels comparatively grounded. Of course the cars sound audible as anything, but they lack a certain oomph to them that “Ford v Ferrari” gave in its final product. That is not to say they sound bad, it is just different.

In the end, “Ferrari” is two different movies wrapped into one. But neither of them exactly surpass the distinction of average. If anything, “Ferrari” is a painfully average, not to mention disappointing time. Because while I did not do a deep dive into the film’s marketing campaign before going to see it, I can you tell you the trailers are on another level. The trailers are honestly much better than the movie. It’s kind of sad, really. Much “Killers of the Flower Moon,” I will not doubt “Ferrari” will get some attention this awards season. But much like “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Ferrari” might not be my cup of tea. There are plenty of good things in it, but I honestly find the movie quite forgettable and ultimately lacking in any reason for me to watch it a second time. Maybe I could give it a second chance eventually because some positives stand out, but for now, I am going to give “Ferrari” a high 5/10.

“Ferrari” arrives in theaters everywhere December 25th. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! I have plenty more reviews coming in the near future as the year comes to an end! I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Boy and the Heron,” “Dream Scenario,” “Maestro,” “Wonka,” “Migration,” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” Stay tuned! If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Ferrari?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie with Adam Driver in it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Priscilla (2023): A Hauntingly Brilliant Encapsulation of First Love and the Hesitancy of Letting Go

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Priscilla” is directed by Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation, The Virgin Suicides) and stars Cailee Spaeny (On the Basis of Sex, Pacific Rim: Uprising), Jacob Elordi (The Kissing Booth, Euphoria), and Dagmara Domińczyk in a film about the young girl who meets Elvis Presley, falls in love with him, and how her life changes while connected to the rock and roll star. It is also based on “Elvis and Me,” a 1985 memoir co-written by Priscilla Presley and Sandra Harmon.

As indicated in one of my recent reviews, specifically, “Dicks: The Musical,” A24 is a wonderfully polarizing studio. It has delivered its fair share of huge hits and magnificent misses, but with just about every film they have done, I walked out of each one recognizing that something stood out about them. Whether it was the way they were shot, written, acted, edited, or an oddball combination of aspects that somehow make the project individualistic. Between that background, and the hauntingly beautiful trailer that was released in advance of this film’s release, I was curious as to what this film could deliver.

But little did I know what it was bound to deliver. “Priscilla” is easily one of the best films I have seen this year.

2023 has had plenty of bangers for me like “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” “Oppenheimer,” and “BlackBerry.” Of course there are other movies too, but “Priscilla” shares similar qualities to those movies in the sense that I could not stop thinking about it the moment I exited the theater. Because those films all had screenplays that continuously had me thinking about the themes, the ideas that went into the film. “Priscilla,” much like the recently mentioned latter films, is based on true events. Even if this film somehow managed to capture a Hollywoodized version of what happened, it was very effective in its efforts. Almost every other scene between the two leads, mostly in the later portion of the film, almost had me biting my nails. I did not know a whole ton about the relationship between Elvis and Priscilla, but this film sort of opened my eyes. In fact, it perhaps earns an additional ticket of certification as it is produced by Priscilla Presley herself.

While this film is a showcase of the romance between Elvis and Priscilla, it is something deeper at its core. It is really a marvelous depiction of what it is like to be an adolescent with a first crush. Even as you age, that idea sometimes fails to slip away. We see that as Priscilla and Elvis become romantically involved, she longs for his presence, and of course, Elvis comes with the bonus of being a bit of a status symbol. But even without Elvis in the mix, I think the movie does a decent job at showing what it is like to be young, experience love, or some feeling that resembles love, for the first time. This is mostly shown on Priscilla’s part, as she is the protagonist of the film, but it is also fascinating to see someone like Elvis Presley decide how he chooses this one young girl over the thousands of other screaming fans, not to mention celebrities alive at the time of his dominance. Their connection is one that is not easy to watch, but hard to look away from. It is ultimately a riveting, gut-wrenching romance that does not have me thinking the individuals involved are making the best choices, but it is one that I understand why it could happen. That is the foundation of this movie. Taking two young, beautiful, different people, and putting them together in a connection that is not exactly smooth-sailing. It kind of has its ups and downs along the way, but the downs become increasingly evident as the movie goes.

This movie made me ask myself what I would do had I slipped into Priscilla’s shoes. There is a moment in the film where Elvis and Priscilla are together, the former is doing an activity, and the latter seems uninterested in it. Elvis appears to catch on but informs Priscilla that there are a lot of people, particularly women, who would kill to do said activity with him. That moment basically summed up the whole movie and Priscilla’s character to a tee. We all have our celebrity crushes. I will be straight up and admit that one that instantly comes to mind for me, at least at this moment in time would have to be Ana de Armas. Now if I were given the opportunity to be with her if I found out she were single, my mind would instantly think “yes.” But the question that remains to be answered is whether I would stay with them once I get to know their various quirks. The question remains true for any potential partner, but I would have to imagine in some cases, when it comes to a high-profile celebrity like Elvis Presley, or in my case, Ana de Armas, it would be a lot harder to back out in a situation like that. It goes to show how deeply we value celebrity culture and how it influences us as a society. This movie basically sums up the whole “don’t meet your heroes” idea. Did meeting Elvis Presley and getting to know him disappoint Priscilla? Maybe not at first. But as the movie goes along, we see the two develop to a point where the relationship becomes controlling, one-sided, and toxic. Because of this, “Priscilla” is arguably the most uncomfortable I felt watching a movie in 2023, but I mean that in the most positive of statements. It felt raw. It felt immersive. It doesn’t hold back.

To my lack of surprise, the Elvis Presley Foundation declined their approval for the film. After all, unlike last year’s “Elvis,” it features the iconic musician in a less positive light. It complexifies him to the point where he is a bit more arrogant. He may be nice in some scenes, but the movie is not afraid to highlight moments where he is a jerk. Therefore, while this movie did not get me to stop appreciating some of Elvis’s songs, I admire its approach in telling a story where someone so well known and respected is given a much darker background. Speaking of Elvis’s songs, and given what I just said this should not come as a huge shock, there are no Elvis songs in this film. That said, the film has a decent soundtrack that captures its respective setting beautifully. It has a nice throwback feel and I admire the film aspiring to the challenge of putting none of Elvis’s songs in a movie in which he is prominently featured. That said, he is not the protagonist. This is not his story. This is Priscilla’s story. And her story is glorious. It is a story I will continue to think about for ages. It is a story that says a ton on how we view our idols. How we will sometimes make sacrifices for the people we admire. How we feel when we experience love and don’t want to let it go, even if it may be for the greater good. “Priscilla” is an easy two-thumbs up.

In the end, “Priscilla” is one of the most hallowing tales of love I have ever seen. It is one of those movies that you kind of have to see to believe. “Priscilla” is not only one of the best movies of the year, it is one of the finest works A24 has put out in its short history. It is up there with “Room,” “Pearl,” and “First Reformed” as one of my favorite films the distributor has put out. Sofia Coppola brings amazing performances out of everyone in this film, especially its two leads, Cailee Spaeny and Jacob Elordi. Both of these two should be in contention for some big buzz this awards season. They do an excellent job with their roles. Regardless of how this film bases itself on true events, I think Priscilla Presley has one of my favorite character arcs in recent film. By the end, I was satisfied with her journey, but I left feeling icky. And mean that as a compliment. With each passing moment, Cailee Spaeny dominates the screen with her admirable presence and instant likability. If you told me in 2020 that in the next few years we’d be getting a movie from Warner Brothers about Elvis Presley, and follow that up next year with a movie from A24 about Priscilla Presley, I’d slap you across the face and call you crazy. If you told me after getting slapped that I would hate the Elvis Presley movie, and think the Priscilla Presley movie is a significant improvement over it, I might buy into your claim given how I think A24 tends to put out standout film after standout film. Yet at the same time, I would tell you to seek professional help. But here we are. “Priscilla” is one of the year’s best films and I am going to give it a 9/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for the brand new anime “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes!” This film was not playing in too many places near me, but I did get a chance to catch a screening of it at an AMC, so I will have my review of the film as soon as possible. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on Marvel Studios’ latest film, “The Marvels,” Disney’s newest animated feature, “Wish,” and Taika Waititi’s most recent directorial effort, “Next Goal Wins.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Priscilla?” What did you think about it? Or, if you have seen both films, I want to know which one you liked better… “Elvis?” Or “Priscilla?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023): Three and a Half Hours of Kills, But Few Thrills

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Killers of the Flower Moon” is directed by Martin Scorsese (The Irishman, The Wolf of Wall Street) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, Titanic), Robert De Niro (Meet the Parents, Joker), and Lily Gladstone (First Cow, Billions). When oil is discovered on Osage land, its people are murdered one by one. As this continues, the FBI steps in to unravel the mystery.

Martin Scorsese is undoubtedly one of the most notable names in Hollywood. He is one of the most influential directors of all time who still happens to have a respectable track record today. His older films continue to hold up and his newer titles do not seem to miss either. I have to say when it comes to his recent work, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” while I did not find it to be perfect, is one of the better movies I have seen to have come out in the past decade. In fact, to know that Scorsese is once again reuniting with Leonardo DiCaprio only serves as a boost of confidence. And of course, alongside them, is Robert De Niro, another acting legend who cannot do any wrong. Both Scorsese and De Niro were coming in hot with their recent work together, “The Irishman,” so to have a couple of Scorsese’s top players come back only helped build the prestige of what was to come. Now if I have to be frank, “The Irishman” to me was a movie of moments. There are a lot of decent parts of the film, but I feel like the parts I enjoyed more were less significant to the plot and more likely to be described as random sprinkles in the background. And to be honest, it was too long.

I can sit through a three plus hour movie. In fact, speaking of Leonardo DiCaprio, I very much enjoyed “Titanic.” The “Lord of the Rings” films are around the three hour mark and for the most part, they all serve their runtime beautifully. “Seven Samurai” is a wonderfully shot, exquisitely told revenge tale. “RRR,” which I reviewed months ago, is one of the most chaotically fantastic three hour escapes I’ve had in my entire life. If you want to go for something very recent, with a runtime that clocks at just around three hours, “Oppenheimer” is a compelling, haunting drama that I did not want to end. And if you are wondering why I had less of a problem with those movies than “The Irishman,” it’s not necessarily just that they were more entertaining. But everything in those movies felt essential, and they used those few hours in a way that had me engaged from scene one to the end credits. “The Irishman” honestly ends up feeling rather tiresome by the end, and maybe a little self-indulgent. I gave the movie a 7/10 when I reviewed it, but the more I think about the movie, I often think about how the runtime bogged my mind by the time it was concluding.

And that’s why I was worried when I found out that instead of “The Irishman’s” three hour and 29 minute runtime, “Killers of the Flower Moon” was only three minutes shorter at three hours and 26 minutes. If I have to be honest, this movie somehow feels longer than “The Irishman.” I cannot even believe I am saying that. For the record, I ended up seeing this movie in IMAX, and somehow I still felt overwhelmed with what was happening. When it comes to the look of the film, I will not deny that in many instances, it looks gorgeous. It honestly looks more pristine and captivating than a good number of films that came out this year. The cinematography is some of the best of the year. The locations are beautiful. The color palette, while definitely symbolic of the movie’s not so happy go lucky tone, is perfect for the story at hand. I will not deny it, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a well made, well crafted, well acted, well directed piece of art. Or cinema, as some would prefer to call it. It’s just too long.

They size does not matter, it is what you do with it. And what they did with it, was kind of boring. By the second half of this movie, I kept asking myself when it was going to end, and that is never a good sign.

I must reiterate that “The Wolf of Wall Street” is a banger of a flick. From start to finish it is a wild trip with this one guy who by definition, should be beyond unlikable, and yet they utilize him in such a way that makes him one of the most charming protagonists in that year’s slate of films. Leonardo DiCaprio killed it in the lead role and while I did not always identify with the character, DiCaprio did such an excellent job at making a character like Jordan Belfort as palatable as possible. He is the kind of character that part of you wants to be, but then that sane part of your mind kicks in and rejects that thought. Jordan Belfort is a moron. No doubt about it. But he is a pretty likable one at that. DiCaprio manages to play, personality-wise, a similar character in this film. Specifically, Ernest Burkhart. He is clearly does not really have the best morals. I honestly find it hard to link alongside or root for this character sometimes. Overall, he is kind of self-centered. What kept me interested about Jordan Belfort is that in every scene, even in ones where he clearly came off as a posh prick, I found the character himself to be charming. My ability to admire Ernest on the other hand, was flying up and down like a see-saw.

Was I at least intrigued by this character’s arc and journey? Sure. In fact, one of the highlights of “Killers of Flower Moon” for me would have to be Ernest’s love connection with Lily Gladstone’s character. Everything involving this relationship, from early on all the way through the long runtime felt genuine. I really like these two together. In fact, it goes to show that Lily Gladstone not only gives a knockout performance as the character of Mollie Burkhart, but she may have been the bright spot in a film where everything around her feels comparatively brooding or a bit of a downer. She stands out as an angel in a dark alleyway.

The whole balance between Ernest’s connection to his uncle, in addition to the established motivation against the Osage people, in kahoots with his own relationship with Molly, serves as “Killers of the Flower Moon’s” biggest point of intrigue. It is, likely by design, supposed to induce discomfort. And if that is the case, the film certainly did its job. Because I am watching everything going down, and it is not really much of a mystery as to who is doing all the killing in the movie. There is the old saying that it is not about the destination, it is the journey. To be frank though, when it comes to this journey, I probably ventured off a few stops early.

When it comes to the movie’s cast, it is pretty stacked. Not only do we have Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, the two big names carrying the film together. By the way, De Niro is quite good as William Hale, and delivers my favorite line of the film.

It may sound better with context, but those who must know, the line is “The front is the front, and the back is the back.”

But in addition to these names, the entire Osage ensemble happens to be really good in this film. I bought into all of them. We also have Jesse Plemons, who is given a meaty supporting role as an FBI agent with a lot to like. But I must admit, as much as I like Brendan Fraser and John Lithgow as actors, they almost feel out of place in this film. They feel distracting. Their appearances are not cameos, but they are almost executed in ways that feel cameo-like. They are not giving monumentally bad performances by any means, they do okay with the material given to them. But when you put them against say the recently mentioned Jesse Plemons, they feel more like stars than characters. That’s the best way I can sum it up.

Speaking of things that feel out of place, the ending of this film, when it finally happens, rubbed me the wrong way. I am sure it was well intentioned. If you asked me if Martin Scorsese and crew inserted everything into this film believing each increment would feel necessary, I would say yes. That said, the second to last scene in this film comes off as inconsistent and abrupt. When the movie finally ended, I was glad, because it was already long enough, but it does not change the fact that I waited over three hours for something that was lacking in satisfaction. When it comes to movies, I like weird. I like different. And I admire when filmmakers try stuff that are out of the ordinary. This is one of those times where it did not stick the landing.

If I had to name another positive, this film nails its atmosphere. Again, going back to its overall look, everything in the frame feels magnificently crafted. But there is also more to it than sight. Because the film is scored by Robbie Robertson (rest in peace) and he brings forth one of the most hypnotic and unique scores of the year. It is totally fitting for the movie at hand and almost comes off as a character of its own. While I may hesitate to watch “Killers of the Flower Moon” a second time, I could see myself going on YouTube and searching up the official soundtrack for the film to listen to in the background. It might be my favorite part of the entire film.

In the end, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a magnificent effort that is not quite my cup of tea. There are things to like about it, but I do not know if I can say it was worth my time. I am honestly having trouble recommending this movie. If you asked me if I would watch it again in the next couple days, my answer would be no. Though I imagine a there are a surplus of people who would say yes. There is always that one movie every year that is likely going to not only get Oscar consideration, but also has a legit shot at a Best Picture nomination that I do not agree with. In 2020, it was “Mank.” In 2021, it was “Licorice Pizza.” In 2022, it was “Elvis.” In 2023, I think “Killers of the Flower Moon,” depending on how the rest of the year goes, will end up being that movie. Despite the marvelous camerawork, occasionally neat characterization, and atmospheric glory, it also reveals the painfully slow editing and pace that remains consistent throughout the movie. It is unfortunate because it is based on events that actually happened and it is an important story to tell. I just wish it were told in a way that made me more likely to run down the streets raving about it. It pains me to do this, but in a thumbs up, thumbs down world, this movie is a thumbs down. So, this score is going to reflect that. I am going to give “Killers of the Flower Moon” a 5/10.

“Killers of the Flower Moon” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Freelance,” the brand new movie starring John Cena as an ex-special forces operative. I will also have reviews coming soon for “The Persian Version,” “Priscilla,” “The Tunnel to Summer, the Exit of Goodbyes,” and the one movie on this list I am certain Martin Scorsese is most excited about, “The Marvels.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Killers of the Flower Moon?” What did you think about it? And if you saw the movie, do you think the runtime is justified? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks

Blade Runner (1982): Gimmie a Hard Copy Right There

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! And welcome one and all to the final entry to the Ridley Scottober review series! If you want to check out my reviews for the other films in the series, such as “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World,” click the provided links and have a ball! Today we will be talking about one of my most rewatched movies in recent years, “Blade Runner.” Also, if you want to see a less professional, perhaps crappier example of my writing, I reviewed “Blade Runner 2049” back when it came out in 2017. I was less experienced, but still had a sense of a writing style of sorts. Check it out! Before we begin this review, I want to make something clear. On this blog, when I review a movie, it is typically of the initial version released in theaters or whatever platform it was designed for. With “Blade Runner,” this is no exception. For this review, I will be using the theatrical version of the film as a baseline. Maybe one day I will do my thoughts on “The Final Cut” as a separate post, which I have seen. But I am treating this movie the same way I treat just about every single other one I watch. That said, if you choose to stick around and read this review, enjoy your stay, make yourself at home, and let’s dive into one of Ridley Scott’s most talked about films.

“Blade Runner” is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, The Duellists) and stars Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), Rutger Hauer (Nighthawks, Inside the Third Reich), Sean Young (Jane Austen in Manhattan, Stripes), and Edward James Olmos (Wolfen, Zoot Suit). This film is based on the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and centers around LAPD detective Rick Deckard as he is tasked with hunting down and retiring four Replicants who come to earth on a stolen ship in order to find their creator.

“Blade Runner” is one of those films that has had an impact on me since the first time I saw it back in 2017. In fact, this is not my first time talking about the film on this blog as I once did a post weeks after my initial viewing, talking about what the film got right about the future. Again, much like my “Blade Runner 2049” review, my quality of writing may have been a bit different at the time. Just a fair warning.

Little to my knowledge, “Blade Runner” would have a major influence on my academics. If you knew me in high school, there is a chance that you were with me in a film studies class. “Blade Runner” was the first and last feature film I ended up watching in the class given how much of the curriculum tended to use that film as a backbone of sorts. In college, I ended up choosing to study “Blade Runner” for a final project in my Television & Film Studies class. I have developed a passion for this movie, this property, and if the right people are involved, I would not mind seeing more of it. Judging by what I just said, you already know that this is going to be a positive review. If “Blade Runner” had a personality and made an effort to describe my relationship with it, it would probably channel Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part III” and say “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”

Sorry, “Blade Runner,” my days of discussing you are not over just yet.

But I cannot help it, because “Blade Runner” is a master class effort. I think it is a particularly unique film. And it has done a lot to influence many stories that came after. The film is based on Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” which a number of claim is the earliest example of cyberpunk. This sub-genre has remained popular over the years with titles across various mediums like “Akira,” “The Fifth Element,” “Ghost in the Shell,” “Altered Carbon,” and “Cyberpunk 2077” just to name a few. It is easy to get lost in a good movie with proper atmosphere, and when it comes to the cyberpunk nature of “Blade Runner,” getting lost in 2019 Los Angeles, or at least what this movie makes it out to be, is as easy as pie.

One of the basic rules of filmmaking is to show, not tell. And that is going to be an ongoing theme in this review. Because everything this movie shows is remarkable. There are tons of practical effects that are beautiful to the naked eye. The production design for this film is off the charts. There are very few films that are like this one aesthetically, and I say that knowing how much cyberpunk has evolved over the years. This film released in the 1980s, a time where cars looked quite different than they do today. And when I look at the vehicles in “Blade Runner,” they definitely have a look at the time that screams futuristic, but I admire how they seem to carry a vintage charm to them. I could totally buy the design of Deckard’s spinner in the film, even if it seems to look a bit like something from the time this movie came out.

Framing-wise, this is one of the coolest-looking films I have ever seen. Despite the film claiming it is set in Los Angeles, it feels like a different kind of environment. This film, at least at the time it came out, is science fiction. There is also a bit of a film noir undertone as well. This movie’s use of the color blue throughout is vivid in my memory. The color palette always packs in a blue tone. You can see hints of bluish lighting throughout the film. And one nice little touch in the background during various scenes are the many umbrellas going about the streets. Their handles have a bluish neon glow to them, almost like Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber in the early “Star Wars” installments. Speaking of “Star Wars,” one of my favorite Easter eggs about “Blade Runner,” if you pay close attention, is that there is a building in the film that resembles the look of the Millennium Falcon, Han Solo’s ship. And to top it off, Han Solo’s respective actor, literally plays the main character of this movie!

Sticking on the topic of things that look cool, one of the most intriguing designs in the whole film is the Tyrell Skyscraper. This building is utilized throughout multiple portions of the movie, and every time I look at it, I cannot help but stare in awe and wonder. The inside is enormous and carries a robust flair to it. From the outside with the help of lights shining through the windows, it looks screensaver-worthy. I also admire how the pyramid design allows for tons of incline elevators to be put in place throughout the premises. If you know me in real life, I am a bit of an elevator geek. If I were in the “Blade Runner” universe, one of the first things I would do is go into the Tyrell Skyscraper just to ride the elevator.

But just because this movie shows all sorts of cool things, does not mean it tells all sorts of cool things. Now to be fair, the dialogue in this film is minimalistic and it is perfect. There are plenty of scenes where the characters are completely quiet or there are inklings of silence. If you watched other versions of the movie, this will not matter, but if you watch the original version, there is a chance you may remember Harrison Ford’s character, Deckard, not only serving the film as a protagonist, but as a first-person narrator. While there are moments where the narration is not that much of a big deal, there are some that overexplain what is happening, and others that ruin the visual experience of this movie. One of the highlights of this film for me, from a visual perspective, is the scene where we see Deckard and Gaff inside the spinner, flying through a darkened Los Angeles. The aerial shots really help encapsulate the beauty of the city, even with a supposed sense of gloom in its people. The problem is, the scene, which has no dialogue from the characters, also features narration from Harrison Ford that sort of overembellishes the idea of cityspeak, a mix of pre-established languages. It is not really something I would need to know or care to know on my first viewing. It honestly reminds me of when I watch certain broadcasts of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” on ABC, and Ryan Seacrest is talking up a storm as I am trying to take in the first moments of the new year. I am basically trying to hear the crowd, listen to Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York,” and feel like I am there with everyone. But much like Seacrest’s voice on those occasions, Harrison Ford’s voice is nothing more than added noise. At the end of the day, it does not do much to benefit the film. There are a couple voiceovers that do not colossally damage the experience, but there are plenty that are better left unused. This is especially true for one used towards the end of the film where a crucial character’s arc is fulfilled. We are seeing this moment play out, and I am enjoying every second. Then it is suddenly interrupted with voiceover lines from Harrison Ford that basically spitballs what is happening for the audience, instead of allowing them to take in the lesson from the narration themselves. It is kind of insulting the more I think about it.

That said, I watched a documentary on the making of this movie, “Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner.” And if you have the Blu-ray edition of “The Final Cut,” you can watch it yourself. Harrison Ford revealed not only that he thought the narration, which was added due to poor test screenings, was awful, but he ended up doing it with reluctance. Ford was contractually obligated to complete the lines, so he did what he had to do. He tried his best with the material, but he did not think it was necessary.

Though speaking of Harrison Ford giving his best effort, his performance as Rick Deckard is perfect. The character easily blends into his increasingly depressing environment. He is the kind of guy who will not take any nonsense from anyone, but also kind of has a softer side on occasion. There is nothing overblown about this character, especially when you compare him to some of Harrison Ford’s earlier performances, like those he previously gave as Han Solo. In fact, much of what makes Ford’s character believable in his environment is his tendency to remain quiet during certain scenes, which is balanced perfectly by the mannerisms of this film’s antagonist, Roy Batty.

While Harrison Ford may be the most iconic face in the movie, I think the award for best performance in this film easily goes to Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. I have no idea if Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, this film’s writers, wrote this character with any particular actor in mind, but Hauer is one of the best castings for an antagonist perhaps in the history of cinema. There is a ton of range in a character like this one. When we first see him, his execution of the film’s dialogue is quite direct and to the point. It is almost kind of robotic, which should play into the fact that he is a Replicant. But as we go through the film, there is a continued sense of humanity that develops within this character. You can hear it in his voice, and even his physicality. I said there is a balance between Batty and Deckard, and I mean that wholeheartedly. It is perfectly displayed in the film’s climax, which is not particularly the most epic of climaxes, but it is one that serves the movie to perfection. That said, while I am ultimately rooting for Deckard, I cannot help but admire Batty throughout the climax because every other line out of him sounds like a grounded cartoon. This may be weird to say, but having rewatched this film for review purposes, the dynamic between these characters in the climax almost reminds me of a father and son playing tag or chasing each other around the house. It almost feels carefree even though there are higher stakes involved. Well, that, and there are moments where Batty twists Deckard’s fingers to get revenge.

The movie also kind of ends on a weird note. Again, this is the original cut we are talking about. There is a final scene, which believe it or not, uses footage that was originally made for Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining,” it is unbelievably rushed, and kind of uneven when consider how most of the film is paced. “Blade Runner” is kind of a slow burn, and by the time we get to this scene, it kind of kicks things up a gear or two. It is really weird. Overall, it is an abrupt scene. And while I definitely prefer the more open ending offered in future versions, I think if this movie were trying to go for a more upbeat ending, they probably could have gone for a longer scene. This scene is too quick, too in your face, and appears to be the result of a last minute decision that likely was not even on Ridley Scott’s mind while making his way through much of the film’s production.

Doing this review in 2023, I realize that some of the problems I have with the movie are those that tend to bog down the original cut and eventually get changed in later versions. That said, there is one problem I have with this movie that has lingered with me for years. While I think Sean Young and Harrison Ford have fabulous chemistry together as Rachel and Deckard, and every scene delivers the best out of each actor, I am not a fan of how their love blossoms. If you can call it that. This movie is written by two men, and I am sure that if a woman were credited with the screenplay, the scene where Rachel and Deckard first embrace their love for each other would have been handled differently. Basically, Rachel is trying to leave Deckard’s residence, but before she can get out, she is barricaded by Deckard, preventing her from making an exit, and pushed to a window. The two do end up embracing each other and confirming their love for each other, but the way it happens feels for starters, unrealistic, but also, kind of unsettling. It reminds me of another movie I have rewatched several times over the years, “Revenge of the Nerds,.” In that movie, sure, Betty and Lewis end up confirming their love, or perhaps more accurately at the time, lust, for each other. But the way that initiates is from Lewis basically assaulting her if you break it down. And much like “Revenge of the Nerds,” I will not deny that “Blade Runner” has reminded me of my love for movies in one way or another. But if I had to name a standout flaw with both films, and it is a monumental one, it would be a central love connection that may seem believable in the end due to proper chemistry, but is initiated in a way that can described as off-putting and erroneous.

As mentioned, “Blade Runner” is an example of cyberpunk, which likely takes inspiration from large cityscapes, but in a way, puts them on steroids. That said, even with a somewhat over the top nature provided throughout this movie’s interpretation of Los Angeles, everything around the city in terms of the environments and characters felt completely grounded. There is rarely a moment of this movie that I could not buy. This movie also manages to insert, for the most part, believable product placement. After all, it is set in a major city, so tons of advertising is to be expected. But from the very beginning, the frame is often bombarded with neon, noise, or product acknowledgments from companies like Budweiser or Coca-Cola. Ridley Scott manages to deliver an atmosphere with “Blade Runner” that not only emits realism, but for the entire runtime, makes me feel like I am there.

Though if I had to finish this review with one thing, it is that few movies, in fact few franchises for that matter, tend to answer the question, “What is human?”, like this one. I think Roy Batty, despite being an android, is perhaps one of the greatest encapsulations of that question in the history of film. We see him from the very start of his journey wanting more life. It is established that Replicants tend to have a four-year lifespan. Obviously, most humans live a lot longer, and that is something that he is trying to achieve. But if anything, this movie shows that life is not something you should take for granted. I am 23 years old. In fact, as I am writing this review, I am going to be 24 in just over a week. This movie reminds me to enjoy the moment, even in the darkest of times. Even in a city where the rain never stops, there may be one or two moments of sunshine. This movie may be set in a depressing future, but it is one where beings tend to find inklings of joy to keep themselves busy, whether that inkling can be defined as enjoying some noodles, playing chess, or fiddling with a piano. The beauty of “Blade Runner,” despite coming off as a slow burn and a thinker film, is its simplicity. At its core, “Blade Runner” is about a cop trying to stop a group of targets before it is too late. Everything else is just a bonus, and a mighty bonus it is. Because as far as I am concerned, there is a reason why I have rewatched this film so many times over the years, because it is that good.

Oh, and to answer the often debated question amongst fans, Deckard is a Replicant.

In the end, “Blade Runner” is one of Ridley Scott’s best films, even with its flaws. Again, a lot of the flaws I have in this review did get resolved, but I imagine if I did watch “Blade Runner” back in 1982, I would be having a ball with it. Unfortunately, the film did not do too well when it came out. It polarized critics, made an underwhelming amount at the box office, and possibly suffered from studio notes. Having to compete with another excellent and successful film, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” probably did not make things any easier. Even with that in mind, the film has a lot to offer. Exciting action, likable characters, incredible story arcs, life lessons, captivating writing, stellar direction, brilliant lighting, and stunning effects that make a number of modern movies that rely on CGI pale in comparison aesthetically. I must add, Vangelis’s score is also an absolute banger. “Blade Runner” is one of the best-looking movies I have ever seen, and it is hard to believe it looks this good over forty years later. But these looks are supplemented by a narrative that did nothing more than grabbed my attention and kept it for a couple of glorious hours. I am going to give “Blade Runner” a very high 8/10.

Again, if I were reviewing “The Final Cut,” I might honestly give a higher score. But I am treating this review the same way I am treating the other ones I typically do. And if you want me to be honest with you, as much as I love the original “Blade Runner,” it feels odd to say because I have not watched it in a while, but I honestly think “Blade Runner 2049” is the superior installment. It has all the positives of the original movie, but does some things to improve on it as well. Much like the original, that is another film that I have watched incessantly. In fact it finished as my runner-up for best movie of the 2010s. And if I could go back and do my review of it again, I would give it a 10/10 if I had the chance. Few films made me escape my reality and bring me to another world like that one did. I highly recommend if it is a rainy day, do a “Blade Runner” double feature. Both movies are absolutely worth your time and are two of the finest examples of what sci-fi can be.

“Blade Runner” is now available on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available through various streaming services.

Thanks for reading this review! And I hope you enjoyed my entries to the Ridley Scottober review series! I had a lot of fun doing these. I got to check out some films I have never seen before, in addition to watching one for the umpteenth time. I had a blast doing these and I hope you had fun reading them. If you want to see more reviews, good news! I have more coming soon! I will soon share my thoughts on “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Blade Runner?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite science fiction movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Dumb Money (2023): A True Story Rich in Humor and Stars

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Dumb Money” is directed by Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya, Cruella) and stars Paul Dano (The Batman, The Fabelmans), Pete Davidson (The King of Staten Island, Big Time Adolescence), Vincent D’Onofrio (Daredevil, Full Metal Jacket), America Ferrera (Barbie, How to Train Your Dragon), Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder), Anthony Ramos (In the Heights, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts), Sebastian Stan (Captain America: The First Avenger, I, Tonya), Shailene Woodley (Divergent, Big Little Lies), and Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party). This film is inspired by Ben Mezrich’s “The Antisocial Network,” a book based on true events. The story of “Dumb Money” captures ordinary people subverting the expectations of Wall Street and turning GameStop into the hottest company on the stock market.

I never got involved in the stock market in any capacity throughout my life. It is just something I have never gotten around to. But even as someone who has never gotten involved, there were times in 2021 where I could not scroll through social media without seeing something related to GameStop, or heck, even AMC Theatres. Both companies were the talks of the town at the time because a ton of people kept buying their stock, and on the surface, it felt like an ongoing joke, but for some people, it was more than that. This is a fascinating story. Therefore, I was surprised, but also delighted, that people were making a movie of this caliber on it as soon as they were. On the surface, the cast is fantastic. Many of them either had recent roles that were highlights of their respective works or have maintained careers that have kept my attention for a long time.

When I think of the GameStop stock story, part of me wants to laugh about it. I mean, come on! It is a physical media company that is as much the butt of the joke as it is synonymous with its own industry. If you live in an area where used game stores are a rarity, chances are you will, even with recent closures, have a GameStop or two within close distance. I am a GameStop customer and shop there multiple times a year. I don’t think all their business practices are great, but they usually provide a decent experience if you are looking for something in particular. In fact, I almost ended up working for GameStop in my teens. Having seen this film, I realize that as much as it highlights the people who are investing in GameStop, it is not afraid to joke about some of the things the company has done. Additionally, “Dumb Money” seems to satirize retail environments in general. I previously worked in retail. Not at GameStop, but still. And this kind of took me back in a way. One of my favorite segments of the movie is this bond between a GameStop employee and their boss. Each scene between them got a laugh out of me. This movie highlights, as I previously knew, the fact that GameStop remained open during the pandemic as an essential business. Sure, it sold certain technologies that people often used during the pandemic, but it is far from the most essential of businesses.

My favorite dig this movie does towards the large gaming chain is when they reference the idea of employees doing a TikTok dance challenge as part of a company contest. This is true by the way. The moment I heard that joke, I was in shock, and then in amazement. Because I nearly forgot that happened. Or more specifically, that it almost did. For those who don’t know, GameStop proposed a challenge to its employees to dance to a song on TikTok in the hopes of achieving extra hours on Black Friday week. This is the thing I love about “Dumb Money,” it is a film that balances humor and respect towards its subject matter. But at the end of the day, it is also a film that tells marvelous tales of underdogs.

There are several underdogs in this movie, and their stories are all compelling. In fact, one of those underdogs is a GameStop employee played by Anthony Ramos. If I did not suggest it already, I enjoyed his presence in the film and his character was well written. Meanwhile you have a couple college students trying to strike it rich. Both of whom are wonderfully played by Myha’la Herrold and Talia Ryder. On another side of the spectrum is a struggling nurse named Jenny, played by America Ferrera, whose presence oozed of charisma every moment she was on screen. But at the center of it all is Keith Gill, who spends his off time from his job on the Internet talking about stocks and Wall Street. The working man and family background of this character made him a compelling protagonist, in addition to Paul Dano’s acting method.

I like all the characters in “Dumb Money,” and I must say the antagonists of the film, specifically those more connected with Wall Street such as Seth Rogen’s Gabe Plotkin, are also fun to watch. At times, this movie basically spitballs who to root for, which is not a hard thing for me to do considering the personality traits and backbones of the antagonists. But there is one scene that perhaps over-embellishes the necessity to root against Gabe. This movie is set during the early-ish days of the COVID-19 pandemic. And one of the earliest things we learn about Gabe is that he and his family now own a new place in Florida so they could party hard during the pandemic. I was, and still am to a degree, one of those people who takes the recent events of the pandemic seriously. I am not perfect, but I still keep everything about it in the back my mind. I remember when the pandemic first started, my family and I had to balance our finances because of the way the economy flipped on its head. And I was primarily concerned about getting my grandparents sick. Meanwhile, this guy is more concerned about being able to party like an animal. The difference here is obvious.

“Dumb Money” is one of those stories that highlights the divide between classes. You have Wall Street up at the top and people like Keith Gill, who is not poor, but making chump change in comparison. It shows how even people at the top feel like they might not have enough despite their enormous success. Meanwhile, this GameStop story, whether it will be remembered more as a triumph for people outside Wall Street or as a silly meme that caught a lot of people’s attention, shows that there may be room for regular people when it comes to striking it big on the stock market. This is a story set in recent times that often delivers humor highlighting said times. I am wondering how well this movie is going to age as a comedy because some of its humor is COVID-driven, but there are plenty of other jokes emitting a more timeless feel to balance it out. “Dumb Money” is very funny, entertaining, and brings out a heck of a story. Before this movie, I looked at the GameStop stock trend as a silly fad, but this movie presents it as something more. And that’s probably the best thing about it. It added depth to this subject for me that I was not expecting. A job well done is in order to everyone involved with this movie.

In the end, “Dumb Money” is rich in excellence. It is not my favorite movie of the year, but when it comes to comedy, this movie has a ton of laughs, and as a drama, it is way more compelling than it needs to be. It presents all these individual stories from different walks of life and makes one big, masterful connection out of all of them. “Dumb Money” is neither short on stars or chuckles. Go check it out if you get a chance. I am going to give “Dumb Money” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned because I have reviews coming for “It Lives Inside,” “Dicks: The Musical,” and “Killers of the Flower Moon!” But in addition to those reviews, I have my last review of the Ridley Scottober series dropping this week. If you want to read my reviews in the series so far, you can check out my thoughts on “Body of Lies,” “Gladiator,” and “All the Money in the World.” As for this last review coming up, I must claim it is a big one. I am talking about “Blade Runner!” Make sure you check out these reviews, past and future, when you get a chance! And you can do so by following Scene Before either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Dumb Money?” What did you think about it? Or, do you shop at GameStop? If not, what is your gaming store of choice? Do you even play video games? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

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

Posted on by Jack Drees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many times, actually.

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

Body of Lies (2008): A Pinch of Intrigue Mixed with a Hint of Blandness

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy October! Or should I say, Ridley Scottober! What is Ridley Scottober? Well, throughout the month of October, I will be reviewing four movies directed by Ridley Scott! I wanted to do this because in addition to getting one themed review done this year, I might as well prepare myself for Ridley Scott’s upcoming feature, “Napoleon,” which so far has won me over with the marketing. I cannot wait to see it. Let’s kick things off with the first review in the series, “Body of Lies,” Scott’s 2008 spy thriller.

“Body of Lies” is directed by Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Aviator), Russell Crowe (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), Mark Strong (Stardust, Babylon A.D.), Golshifteh Farahani (M for Mother, Half Moon), Oscar Isaac (The Nativity Story, Law & Order: Criminal Intent), and Simon McBurney (The Golden Compass, Friends with Money). This film centers around a CIA agent named Roger Ferris, who attempts to track down a terrorist leader in Jordan.

I owned the Blu-ray for this film for almost six full years, and yet I have not watched this film for the first time until only last month. On the cover, there is a lot to like. Between Ridley Scott’s name behind the scenes, in addition to DiCaprio and Crowe’s names standing out for the talent on camera. All of these people, not just today, but even back in 2008 have proven their worth. In fact, “Body of Lies” is not the first rodeo between Scott and Crowe, as the two have worked together multiple times before, therefore it shows they have a solid business relationship. The same cannot be said for Leonardo DiCaprio, but I am sure both individuals brought plenty of promise to each other at the time of production. When you have these three names together, it equally brings a lot of promise to the audience.

Unfortunately though, while the promises of this film do not appear to be empty, they do not feel like they were entirely met. Now, these three individuals do an okay job in the film. But I cannot say that this film comes off as the pinnacle of any of their resumes. Whether we are talking about a collective or individual effort. All three have done better things before, all three have done better things after. In fact, of the Ridley Scott pictures I have seen, this is one of the more pedestrian ones he has made.

The movie is shot well, like many other Ridley Scott pictures. In fact, this was shot by Alexander Witt. This is the first proper cinematography credit in a feature film. Much of his work prior, not to mention after, was as a part of a second unit, but this time around he is on the front lines. The way the camera is used in “Body of Lies” for the most part provides for a bit of an uneasy vibe. After all, that is what the film should be beyond its surface, it is a soldier vs. terrorist sort of rivalry. “Body of Lies” is a film that at times puts you in the middle of the action, but it does not have enough oomph to make me run out on the streets and recommend this film to others. Although if there is one additional positive to point out, the color palette of this film perfectly establishes its overall atmosphere. It has this moody feel to it, but it supplies itself in such a way where everything around it still manages to pack in a tad of thrills and excitement. It was easy on the eyes.

Speaking of beginnings, I am pleased to report that this film is one of the early roles from Oscar Isaac, who I think is one of the better performers who has tended to lend himself to content within the spectrum of popular culture over the years. This is not his first role. Isaac was previously in films like “All About the Benjamins” and “The Nativity Story.” But I think this film shows how solid of an actor he was early in his career. Despite his first name, he is not on an Oscar level here, but he is one of the standouts in this film for me, which says something considering who the two leads happen to be.

This film stars Russell Crowe in addition to Leonardo DiCaprio, and when it comes to the former, it is clearly established that he is a dad. Particularly, one who is heavily involved in the lives of his young children. This allows for an ongoing gag where his character is doing things for his children all the while trying to balance work. We see him on the phone with Leonardo DiCaprio completing important calls all the while either doing something such as taking his kids somewhere or tending to them. While this is a great way to establish a character’s background, the amount of time spent exposing this feels like overkill. I do not know if they were trying to be funny with this tendency, after all this is a thriller, not a comedy. Sure, maybe if I were a parent myself, which I am not, maybe I could relate to this gag. And the more I think about it, seeing this sort of reminds me of seeing my mom taking calls over the years while I am in her presence given her line of work. But when it comes to this gag, it feels like too much delivered in my face. The phone gag feels like the one moment that the movie is going for humor. But because everything else, for the most part, comes off as serious, the only reaction I have as this is going on is silence. I am not saying this should not be in the movie, it serves a purpose as to establishing the characters, but I think it overembellishes itself at times.

The narrative, in terms of progression, character development, and concept, all get the job done. There is nothing remotely broken that I can point out about the film in terms of how everything in it is laid out story-wise. All the characters work. The chemistry works. The concept works. And that is the best way that I can sum up “Body of Lies.” It is not a film that is overly offensive. But it is also not a film that I walked out of thinking that it is a game changer. It is a film that I think some people would kill their first born child in order to have it be as good as it is. But when it comes to the reputation of Ridley Scott, who continues to be one of the more respected filmmakers working today, this feels kind of bland. There is a reason why nobody is talking about “Body of Lies” all these years later and instead bringing up other films like “Blade Runner” and “Thelma & Louise.” It’s because those films made a mark on its viewers culturally and managed to deliver something special. And yes, “Body of Lies” is exciting at times and there are moments where the intrigue is there, but it is not enough for me to say I would watch it again in the next few months. Maybe it would make for good background noise if I find it randomly on cable, but that is probably the extent of it.

If there are any other highlights I can point out, I did like the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Roger Ferris, and his love interest he meets along the way. Said love interest, Aisha, is played by Golshifteh Farahani. I thought the two had solid chemistry and every moment they were on screen together, they clicked. They probably had the best connection in the entire movie. Their bond was fun to watch.

In the end, “Body of Lies” is… Fine, I guess. When I bought the Blu-ray six years ago, I was quite intrigued to know that Ridley Scott was behind it. I was intrigued by the big names on the cover. There was a lot of potential. The potential here is not wasted, but it does not mean the film doesn’t underwhelm. There is nothing about this movie that makes me angry, but there is nothing about this movie that makes me think I should go back to it anytime soon. Ridley Scott is a respected filmmaker. And while this may be an okay movie for some people, this may not be the finest Ridley Scott movie. I am going to give “Body of Lies” a 6/10.

“Body of Lies” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming. As of this writing, it is available on Max to all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this first installment to the Ridley Scottober series, guess what? I’ve got three more coming! I don’t think the next review is gonna be on Saturday like this one. To be frank, I wanted to get this review out a little earlier, but I have had a pretty busy week. And I honestly have a busy week next week too, because I’m gonna be on vacation in New York, but I should have some time to whip something up. I’m gonna be on a train for three to four hours, so I can definitely do something. Maybe I will drop the review Thursday. I am kind of playing this series by ear at this point. But if you want to see another one of my reviews for a Ridley Scott movie I did a couple years back, check out my thoughts on “The Last Duel!” That should hold you all over for some time. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Body of Lies?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie from a respected filmmaker that you think may be one of their inferior works? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Haunting in Venice (2023): A Not so Happy Halloween with Hercule Poirot

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Haunting in Venice” is directed by Kenneth Branagh (Belfast, Hamlet), who also stars in the film as Hercule Poirot. Also joining him in the cast are actors including Kyle Allen (West Side Story, The Path), Camille Cottin (Stillwater, House of Gucci), Jamie Dornan (Fifty Shades of Grey, Belfast), Tina Fey (Saturday Night Live, 30 Rock), Jude Hill (Belfast, Magpie Murders), Ali Khan (Red Rose, Everyone Else Burns), Emma Laird (The Crowded Room, Mayor of Kingstown), Kelly Reilly (Sherlock Holmes, Yellowstone), Riccardo Scamarcio (John Wick: Chapter 2, The Woman in White), and Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All at Once, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings). This film is the third installment in Kenneth Branagh’s ongoing series of Agatha Christie novel adaptations. In this movie, Poirot is retired, but reluctantly attends a seance, an event where people attempt to make contact with the dead. Interestingly, that is how one person at the event ends up. Therefore, it is up to Poirot to figure out the mystery behind said person’s death.

Given how this is Branagh’s third Hercule Poirot adaptation in six years, I think his passion for the character is more evident than ever. He is once again starring as the heavily-mustached detective, in addition to putting his cushion in the director’s chair. That said, I wish I share the same passion for this series that he must have. For the record, I have still not found any time, and supposedly any interest, in checking out “Murder on the Orient Express.” I bought the 4K Blu-ray for a fairly cheap price, but even with the bargain, I still ended up never checking it out. Although I did see “Death on the Nile” last year, which I thought was in a word, fine. Even though it barely meets decency, I did technically watch it twice, as I put on HBO in a hotel room earlier this year and used it as background noise. I thought the casting was effective. And yes, I even liked Gal Gadot in it. Was she stiff at times? Maybe. But she still had enough charisma throughout the picture to be a highlight. Perhaps by just the barest of minimums, I still had enough interest to check out Branagh’s latest attempt at bringing the Poirot character to the screen.

Oh, and Michelle Yeoh is heavily used in the marketing for this film. So that won me over as well. With that in mind, how is the movie?

Unfortunately, not great.

I have seen some people saying online that “A Haunting in Venice” is apparently their favorite or the best of this particular franchise. Again, I still have not seen “Murder on the Orient Express,” but between “A Haunting in Venice” and “Death on the Nile,” I honestly would give the slight edge to “Death on the Nile.” Even with the film’s problems, I will still rather invested in everything that was going on. “A Haunting in Venice” has some entertaining moments. But it is also riddled with its fair share of moments that either annoyed or bored me. The pacing of this film is probably the most insufferable of the year.

The reason why “A Haunting in Venice” does not work, and I hate to say this because there are people I admire in this movie, is the cast. When it comes to these murder mystery style stories, I cannot imagine how hard it is at times to balance a large roster of characters like this. I do not envy Kenneth Branagh for putting himself in this position. That said, I wish the execution for these characters happened to be better. It’s been a little over a week since I have seen “A Haunting in Venice,” I honestly would not be able to tell you a single character’s name without the assistance of the Internet. That goes to show you how unappealing this movie’s characters are. And this is also why I give the edge to “Death on the Nile.” The story is more appealing. There’s more interesting drama. The rivalries kept my attention throughout. “A Haunting in Venice” had none of that. Honestly, as soon as the murder happens, the movie goes from being mediocre to a hot mess.

To be honest though, it is really sad to be saying this, because I think when it comes to the aesthetic of the film, that is the best part of it. I was totally immersed in the film’s environment, but not so much the story. Watching this film reminds me of sometimes when I would play “Watch Dogs.” I would spend some time playing that game neglecting the actual story and find myself more invested in hacking things around Chicago.

The production design of “A Haunting in Venice” is some of the best I have seen all year. I imagine if “Barbie” or “Oppenheimer” did not already exist, it could be my favorite production design of 2023. The film is set in the 1940s and the architecture, interior, and everything in between felt like they fit in with the time. While I will say “Death on the Nile” is the better film, I must admit this is one consistency that is carried over from that film to here, and it is one that is possibly better realized in this case.

Speaking of the film’s look, the cinematography is very well done from start to finish. It sort of fits the spooky, almost creepy crawly vibe the film is going for. If I had one complaint, it is that some of the imagery seems to be a bit fish-eye-like at times. It might not fish-eye by definition. But a lot of it reminds me of a fish eye effect. I would prefer if that effect, if there is one, were removed. There were some shots that were kind of distracting and took me out of the film for a second.

“A Haunting in Venice” is not just a murder mystery, it also doubles as a horror flick. Unfortunately, it is not much better as a horror flick than it is a murder mystery. The film is barely scary, if at all. There are a couple attempts to scare me that probably annoyed me more than they made me jump out of my chair. They kind of felt cheap.

To top this all off, I would like to remind you that this movie prominently features Michelle Yeoh, which I will remind you, earned an Oscar this year for her epic performance in “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I honestly think the Academy made the right choice by giving her the win. With that in mind, it is still too early to tell, but I think the Razzies could potentially make as equally of a smart choice by nominating Yeoh for the next ceremony. This performance is not only a significant step down from her previous effort, but honestly, kind of wasted. Yeoh is a great actor, so I want to hope that this may just be based on the direction that was given to her by Branagh. But when we get to the moment where Yeoh says “Listening…,” I almost had a headache. Do not get me wrong, I still love Michelle Yeoh, but she has been in better movies, and given better performances.

In the end, “A Haunting in Venice” is one of the biggest bores of the year. Thankfully, it is not even Kenneth Branagh’s worst outing in the past few years. Have you ever seen “Artemis Fowl?” If your answer is no, you have just saved yourself an hour and fifty-five minutes of torturous nonsense. That said, of the two Branagh-directed Poirot films I have seen, “A Haunting in Venice” is the worst of them. Maybe one day I will watch “Murder on the Orient Express,” but knowing that this franchise not earned the highest of praise overall, it is hard to say whether I actually will check out that film anytime soon. I have no idea if Kenneth Branagh wants to continue this franchise, but part of me thinks the franchise has died at this point. Then again, maybe he has something neat up his sleeve and I am underestimating him. I always love a good surprise. Sadly though, “A Haunting in Venice” fails as a murder mystery, and it also fails as a horror movie. Terrible combo if you ask me. I am going to give “A Haunting in Venice” a 4/10.

“A Haunting in Venice” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! Fun fact, this film was produced by one of the industry’s most revered directors, Ridley Scott. And this is the perfect segway to introduce an all-new segment that I will be debuting this month, RIDLEY SCOTTOBER! That’s right! Once a week, I have not decided on the days yet because this month is kind of busy for me, I will be dropping a brand new review for a Ridley Scott-directed film. It only feels appropriate. There is not too much coming out this month that I want to see right away. I should also note I am not a Swiftie. Plus Scott has a brand new film coming out in November, specifically “Napoleon,” therefore this serves as proper preparation. The first film in the series is going to be “Body of Lies,” a 2008 action thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. I will announce the other films to be reviewed at a later date. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Haunting in Venice?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Kenneth Branagh’s Agatha Christie adaptations? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!