Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! To those living in the United States, happy Thanksgiving! In the spirit of giving thanks and with the upcoming holiday season, I think it is appropriate to give you all something. Specifically, an announcement. Today I would like announce that I am working on a brand new series called Celebrity Movie Requests!
This year, I searched for ten prominent people to see if they had any ideas on films I should talk about and review. Next year, you will finally get to see which celebrities I recruited for this series, as well as the films they requested. And these are all real people. No A.I., no deepfakes, no Photoshopping Maury Povich’s face on my body to make it seem like he requested something… None of that nonsense! I have walked up to all of these celebrities in person, and asked them if they were interested in participating in this series. To my delight and surprise, all of the people you will see in the coming year said yes.
Celebrity Movie Requests will be available through two avenues. For those of you who visit this very site, Flicknerd.com, you will be able to find these posts here. If you are not subscribed to the blog already, please do so with an email or WordPress account so you can be notified about when these reviews drop, as well as other posts I decide to make. Also, these reviews will be done through video, not text. Therefore, I will be uploading each one to my YouTube channel, so please subscribe to know when the videos drop! I am still thinking about how exactly I am going to pull each video off. I do not know if I will have a dedicated set or if I will do each one in a different location. But I still have some time to iron out a few kinks.
You may notice the poster hides each person on it. At this time, the people on this poster shall remain a mystery. But more details as to who is on the poster will be revealed in the coming months. So, this begs the question. Who do you think is on this poster? And I know some of you reading this have been informed about some of the people already. KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT. Do not ruin the surprise for anyone. No one likes a party pooper.
Once again, Happy Thanksgiving! I am still over the moon that I get to do Celebrity Movie Requests. This is especially true considering Scene Before officially turns a decade old in March. I thank everyone for their viewership and support. I hope you are all looking forward to Celebrity Movie Requests as much as I am. In the meantime, be sure to follow the official Facebook page, and check out my other movie reviews right here! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Good Fortune” is written and directed by Aziz Ansari (Parks and Recreation, Master of None), who also stars in the film as Arj. Joining him is a cast including Seth Rogen (Neighbors, Sausage Party), Keke Palmer (Nope, Password), Sandra Oh (Killing Eve, Grey’s Anatomy), and Keanu Reeves (John Wick, The Matrix). This film showcases what happens when an angel switches the life of a man struggling to get by with that of his wealthy employer.
“Good Fortune” is a movie that I have looked forward to since I watched the first trailer several months ago. Every time I saw the trailer at the theater, it felt like a dose of joy. This looked like a film that refuses to take itself seriously. At least in part, because it also features characters dealing with serious problems. Sure, many movies have characters dealing with problems, but we are talking about a protagonist who lives in their car. And not a camper, this is a typical, everyday car!
I am proud to say that “Good Fortune” met, and in some ways, exceeded my expectations. It definitely met my expectations when it comes to humor. The film is consistently funny. But I was not expecting this film to have such fantastic commentary on societal issues. The film sort of feels like a live-action “Family Guy” episode. In this case, this would be an extended commentary on the gig economy and the divide between the rich and the poor.
There is not a single character in this film I dislike. Even Seth Rogen, who plays a lazy, rich snob, is charming in his own way. That said, if I have one negative about Rogen’s role of Jeff, despite him doing a good job, part of me would have liked to see someone else in his shoes. After all, Rogen played a very similar character just a couple years ago in the super funny “Dumb Money.” Is he good at playing a pretentious bro? Sure. But the more I think about Rogen in “Good Fortune,” the more I link it to his previous performance in “Dumb Money.” There are some differences between the two characters, however. In this film, Jeff appears to be happily single, which I thought was perfect because on the polar opposite, Arj spends much of the movie trying to impress a woman. This movie reminds me of that debate of whether it is more fulfilling to have love or money. We know Jeff was able to find money, or perhaps more accurately, be born into it. But for Arj, finding both money and love is like finding a needle in a haystack.
I also like how the movie seems to hint that Jeff equates proving one’s self in a relationship to how much you are willing to spend on a person. When Arj tells Jeff he is taking his date out for tacos, Jeff thinks Arj needs to step up his game, so he recommends an upper class restaurant whose meals cost an arm and a leg. But with Jeff not seeing money as that much of an issue, he claims the place is affordable. Jeff seems to mean well with his recommendation, but it was most definitely not a good match for someone of Arj’s budget. While I saw where this joke was going from a mile away, the execution of the restaurant scene as it was happening was rather funny.
For me, Keanu Reeves is an instantaneous selling point when it comes to marketing your movie. Reeves may not always be in the best films. Just read my review for “Replicas.” But as soon as this movie pitched me the concept of Keanu Reeves as an angel, I wanted to know more. I am proud to say that Reeves is fantastic in this film. He has perfect chemistry with everyone around him, most especially Aziz Ansari and Seth Rogen, but he has a knack for comedy. That said, he is not wholly responsible for his excellent performance, some credit has to go to the writing. Hearing Keanu Reeves say the words “chicken nuggies” alone is a guaranteed laugh.
That said, like a lot of comedies, I can see viewing experiences varying significantly based on whether you have seen the trailers. I found a good amount of the movie’s funniest bits to be in the trailers. Although there are some surprises to be found.
“Good Fortune” feels like this year’s “Thelma.” Conceptually, the two films are worlds apart, but in terms of what they are going for, the two follow and accomplish similar objectives. “Good Fortune” is one of the year’s biggest gooffests. There’s a lot of funny lines, lighthearted moments, and a ridiculous plot. But for some reason, everything works.
The other thing “Good Fortune” has in common with “Thelma” is that it made me think. The film taps into one of life’s growing problems. It deals with the near impossibility to live comfortably or be happy, no matter how hard one tries to make it. This is something we see with Aziz Ansari’s character, Arj, who despite working multiple jobs still has trouble affording basic necessities and lives in his car.
I was also pleased with how the movie was able to attribute this commentary to Keanu Reeves’ Gabriel as well. At the beginning of the film, we learn that Gabriel is one of several angels given a beat to oversee. In Gabriel’s case, he’s at a low point on the corporate ladder considering his duty is to stop people from texting and driving. We find out he runs into the opportunity to heal a lost soul, which is another angel’s job. Gabriel takes advantage of this opportunity, which is not only problematic because he tries to do someone else’s job that he has no experience doing, but it also causes him to forget about his primary duties, ultimately causing chaos. That said, despite Gabriel not having experience, I understand why he did what he did. He wanted to prove that he could do something above the bare minimum.
Thankfully, Gabriel’s mishaps lead to an excellent story that I can honestly buy into. There are certain things that I am willing to cheap out on in life, but I think some of us have had that experience where we spend a little more money on something and think we’re never going back to the cheap route ever again. I just bought a Sony OLED television over the summer and while I have had previous televisions I enjoyed, the picture quality on this bad boy is night and day compared to the other ones I owned. I still go to the cinema regularly, but the colors and black levels on my TV honestly rival some movie theaters I have been to in recent years. There is a moment in the film where Gabriel says that despite his best efforts, it seems that money, and by extension, the luxuries that come with it, has solved most of Arj’s problems. Once we get a little taste of the good life it is hard to return to what preceded it. While the good life can bring happiness, it can also trigger insatiability. The movie does a great job at capturing that.
In the end, “Good Fortune” is a fun little movie. It feels rare to find a genuine comedy in cinemas these days, but to have it be this good is just a bonus. That said, if you have not seen the trailers for this film, I would maybe recommend avoiding them because as funny as “Good Fortune” is, one could argue that it would be even funnier if you went into it blind. I watched the trailers multiple times before seeing the film, and I still laughed like a hooligan, so maybe that recommendation would not matter that much. But I do think a lot of the film’s best jokes are in the trailers, so proceed with caution. Aziz Ansari gives this film his all by crafting a hilarious screenplay, delivering a good performance on his own, as well as executing the best possible portrayals out of his fellow actors. Keanu Reeves is more well known as an action star than a comedic talent, but this film showcases his chops for humor. I hope to see him in more comedies. I am going to give “Good Fortune” a 7/10.
“Good Fortune” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Running Man!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” “Sentimental Value,” and “Zootopia 2.” 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 “Good Fortune?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Aziz Ansari project? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Frankenstein” is directed by Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water, Pacific Rim) and stars Oscar Isaac (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Star Wars: The Force Awakens), Jacob Elordi (Priscilla, The Kissing Booth), Mia Goth (X, Infinity Pool), and Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds). This film is based on Mary Shelley’s book “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” and follows the titular scientist and his journey of bringing the Creature to life, as well as the consequences that ensue from his actions.
Guillermo del Toro is one of those names, kind of like Christopher Nolan or Damien Chazelle, that as soon as I see them attached to a project, my curiosity about said project doubles. That said, del Toro is not on the level of those two filmmakers for me in terms of being a priority, but it does not change the fact that he is a reputable name with a solid resume including the moving “Shape of Water,” the super fun “Pacific Rim,” and the 2022 animated gem “Pinocchio.”
As mentioned in previous posts, I am not much of a Netflix guy. But I do try to keep an open mind about some of their projects. After all, when they have the confidence to release a project in theaters, it immediately boosts my interest. So, as I was driving from Massachusetts to Connecticut for a brief stay at a casino, I stopped by a theater on the way to check out the film.
As for the film itself, I found myself having a pleasant time. It is not structured like a traditional film where you have one protagonist and their journey. Instead it seems to share alternate perspectives from Frankenstein as well as the Creature. The film takes its time to share both characters’ sides of the story.
As far as Guillermo del Toro films go, I do not think this has as much visual luster as “The Shape of Water.” I also do not think this film has as much engagement as I felt with “Pinocchio.” When it comes to this film’s future, I do not see it as much replay value as “Pacific Rim.” Do not get me wrong, “Frankenstein” is a good movie, but it is far from Guillermo del Toro’s best work. While this is nowhere near my favorite Guillermo del Toro outing, it is a film that feels distinctly Guillermo del Toro. There is a certain heart and soul to this film that I found right away. Guillermo del Toro’s worlds are so picturesque to the point where I want to step into them and never leave. The film’s color palette is almost like a Peter Jackson “Lord of the Rings” film had a baby with “La La Land.” When I look back at “Frankenstein,” I refuse to call it my favorite film of the year. In fact, it likely will not make my top 10, but this is a film whose use of color, special effects, costuming, and cinematography combine into something totally unique. I cannot recall the last time I sat down and watched a film that looked exactly like this one. While I cannot say that there is a shot in this film that is vividly sticking in my head, I will not deny that this film is consistent it comes to showcasing a plethora of spectacular imagery. That said, the film does teeter to a point where one could argue it has a pacing problem, but it is hard to say I found the movie boring. This is not the most engaging film of the year, but it makes the most of its two and a half hours.
The cast of “Frankenstein” is star-studded. You have Oscar Isaac… Jacob Elordi… Mia Goth… Not only does this film have a ton of big name actors, but all of them fit perfectly into their roles. The chemistry between these actors is immaculate at times. Elordi is compelling as the Creature. I cannot see anyone else but Mia Goth playing Lady Elizabeth Harlander in her respective context. And Oscar Isaac fires on all cylinders.
The more I think about Oscar Isaac, the more I love him. In my review for “Tron: Ares,” I talked about how Jared Leto has not had the best luck with geek-centric projects. Oscar Isaac is the opposite. Sure, “X-Men: Apocalypse” had some mixed reception. But between his excellent performance in “Moon Knight,” his charisma in “Star Wars,” his voiceover chops in “Spider-Verse,” and now arguably his best outing yet in “Frankenstein,” few people are owning the geek space like Isaac is at this point. Isaac is given a lot to do throughout “Frankenstein,” dominating the screen in just about every scene he is in. One of my favorite scenes of the film is set in a lecture hall where Frankenstein demonstrates his ambitions to revive the dead, to less than stellar reception. Throughout this presentation, he gave me a Gene Wilder Willy Wonka vibe, particularly the innocent, ambitious side of him that the public seems to know. That is not to say Isaac lacks range in his performance. When the movie hits its more emotional, heavier moments, Isaac gives the performance his all. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it is up there.
If I had to name a favorite part of the film, it would probably be around the middle when we first see Victor and the Creature in the same room together. I really enjoyed getting to see the bond between the two, particularly as we see Victor trying to teach the Creature about everything he sees. It does not take long for the film to establish that the bond is not particularly the healthiest, but I thought the realization of that concept was perfect. The film clearly paints Frankenstein as something of a protagonist, but again, this film centers around both Frankenstein and the Creature to the point where we get their side of the story, so the film does a great job, especially when the perspective transitions from one character to the other, at giving the Creature material in which it is easy to sympathize with him. This is a “Frankenstein” story that goes beyond the surface level. The Creature is, well, a creature, but it humanizes the creature much more than Universal’s black and white classic.
In the end, “Frankenstein” is not my favorite Guillermo del Toro movie, but this is still a pretty good flick. It definitely lacks an oomph in certain regards, but the technical aspects stand out magnificently. The film has a great cast, fantastic use of color, and the production design is also worth writing home about. I do not know how well I am going to remember “Frankenstein” in the next five years, but in the moment I found it to be quite decent. Overall it is entertaining and well-crafted, especially for a Netflix release. I am going to give “Frankenstein” a 7/10.
“Frankenstein” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Good Fortune!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Running Man,” “Eternity,” “Wicked: For Good,” and “Sentimental Value.” 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 Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Frankenstein” story? It does not have to be a movie. It can be anything. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Shelby Oaks” is written and directed by Chris Stuckmann (Notes from Melanie, Auditorium 6) and stars Camille Sullivan (The Man in the High Castle, Rookie Blue), Brandon Sexton III (Don’t Breathe, The Killing), Keith David (The Thing, Pitch Black), Sarah Durn (Where the Crawdads Sing, Carry-On), Derek Mears (Friday the 13th, Swamp Thing), Emily Bennett (Alone with You, City on a Hill), Charlie Talbert (Where the Crawdads Sing, Angus), Robin Bartlett (The Powers That Be, Mad About You), and Michael Beach (Saw X, Kingdom Business). This film is about a woman who is searching for her missing sister, with whom she previously made YouTube videos about the paranormal.
Before I begin my review for “Shelby Oaks,” I must preface by saying that there is potential for bias in what I am about to say. For those who do not know, this film is directed by Chris Stuckmann, one of the most popular film reviewers on YouTube. In fact, Chris Stuckmann, along with fellow YouTube critic Jeremy Jahns, are two of the biggest inspirations as to why I started critiquing films. As for Stuckmann, I happen to be in the same boat as him. While I love to talk about movies, I am also interested in making them. In fact, not to brag but I have taken my passion for film and media and turned it into something bigger. I work for a news station in Boston, and I made various shorts throughout high school and college.
To add extra potential for bias, I donated to this film’s Kickstarter campaign. I typically pay for the movies I review through movie tickets, physical media, subscription services, etc… But this is the first time I am reviewing a film whose budget literally comes from my own money.
As for my expectations for the film, I will be real… I was not sure what to expect. While I have seen a lot of social media marketing, I only watched the trailer one time in theaters, specifically before “Together,” which like this film, is from Neon. Was I excited? Sure. But I also did my best to keep myself from letting my expectations shatter the roof, as that only increases the chance of disappointment.
“Shelby Oaks” is responsible for making me spend more money on a movie prior to checking it out in the theater than any other, and I would say I made a worthwhile investment because I thought the film is quite good.
Is “Shelby Oaks” a perfect movie? No. But I did not leave this film thinking that Chris Stuckmann needs to stick to his dayjob on YouTube. That said, having watched his YouTube channel and getting to experience what he’s discussed for years, it did enhance my viewing. Stuckmann has established himself as a horror junkie, and it is clear that this is a passion project of his. The film reminded me of “Hereditary” for example due to its tone and lead performance. That film ended up being one of Stuckmann’s favorites of 2018.
The first ten, twenty minutes of the film, admittedly, caught me a little off guard. That whole segment is presented in the style of a documentary. You have interviews, b-roll, all that jazz. There are also several clips that feature YouTube in its older layout, which is not only a nice nostalgic touch, but also fits with the time in which part of this movie is set. It was also fun to see the creative comments sections and the fascinating user names listed there.
Camille Sullivan leads this film as Mia, and I did not know much about the actress leading up to this film’s release, but I am glad to know her name now. She carries this film in several scenes. Her performance, again, reminded me of Toni Collete’s in “Hereditary.” The performance here is not as powerful, but that is partially because “Shelby Oaks'” dialogue does not stand out as much as that of “Hereditary’s.” Granted, I do think this film does a great job at prioritizing visuals over dialogue. At times I felt like I was watching a “Quiet Place” installment. As for the dialogue that is in the film, I cannot say I found any lines that I outright despised. There are no lines that will go down amongst the greatest in history, but I thought overall, the dialogue was effective and helped in getting the characters from point A to point B.
Speaking of getting from point A to point B, I thought this film flew by. Granted, it is on the shorter side, but even with that in mind, it felt shorter than it was estimated to be. Maybe that is because of the film’s documentary approach in the beginning, which took up way more of the runtime than I anticipated. I have nothing against that portion of the film, but still. Even with the film flying by, almost each scene in the main feature feels incredibly drawn out. Each scene tends to take its time, which I have no problem with as they did a good job at drawing me in and immersing me into their respective environments. The film is shot on location, part of which includes the Ohio State Reformatory, the spot used for the prison in “The Shawshank Redemption.” While its lower budget definitely shows, the film’s effects, cinematography, and production design, all maintain a luster to them.
In terms of scares, “Shelby Oaks” reminded me of “Weapons,” which I found more tense than horrifying. It is a film that does not go overboard with any particular scare, although there are a fair amount of cliches in this film such as jumpscares. I am not traditionally a fan of jumpscares, but here they were used sparingly and were not too overly dramatic, which I did not mind.
Speaking of cliches, while this film does have an unusual structure, I found parts of it quite predictable. There is one particular scene where as soon as a certain person popped up, I knew pretty much where it was going, and lone behold, the end result was not much different from what I was expecting. Predictability is not exactly the most satisfying thing to see as a moviegoer, but at least everything in said scene appeared to fit into place.
When I first reacted to this film on social media, I spoke about the pace and how it reminded me of “Blade Runner.” I meant that as a compliment because, again, the film draws out its scenes to the point where they can sometimes feel slow. But by no means does that indicate that the scenes themselves are boring. In fact, I was wide awake for each scene. I cannot tell you everything that happens in each scene. If anything, the film does tend to weaken as it goes along to the point where some of the third act is rather forgettable. Even with that flaw in mind, it does not change how the setup of this film had me hooked. I was still onboard by the end, but less onboard if you will.
Speaking of the third act, I also found the film’s ending to be a bit haphazard. The ending does not break the movie. It does not ruin anything that came before. It does not fundamentally change the scope of the film for the worse, I just thought it was a bit abrupt. It is also kind of ironic because again, multiple scenes in the film feel drawn out. Yet when the movie gets to its ending, it is about as rushed as a TikTok video. This is not the worst ending I have ever seen. Not even close. But it kind of reminded me of “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” which outright refused to overstay its welcome once the climax finished.
What I am about to say next is probably not going to be a problem for many viewers, This is most definitely in nitpick territory but it is something that nevertheless caught my eye. This is probably going to to feel like déjà vu to those who just read my “Smashing Machine” review, I apologize, but bear with me… This film is presented in multiple aspect ratios. Granted, this is not the first time this has happened. Christopher Nolan for example has experience where he often swaps between traditional widescreen and the ratio of an IMAX screen. I have no idea how this film was assembled, but based on my presentation, it seems to have been assembled with a 16:9 aspect ratio in mind.
The film switches between three aspect ratios. There’s the movie footage, which is 2.39:1 widescreen. There’s the documentary footage, which is 16:9, or the traditional aspect ratio of a modern flat-screen television. And there’s the found footage, which is 4:3, or the aspect ratio of a traditional CRT television. Maybe I have to watch the film again in a different theater to see if anything changes, but given how much 2.39:1 footage there is, I am shocked how long I had to look at it on the screen and see two black bars from top to bottom. Maybe Stuckmann and crew tested this film on a wider screen and did not like how it looked, which, okay… I was not there. Maybe it looked ugly. But I found it weird to be watching this film in a theater, which traditionally sets up its screen for many different aspect ratios, and for a majority of the film, I was looking at black bars. I have a feeling this is an artistic choice, and I think it is one that could suit the home market given how most people watching this at home will likely watch this on a 16:9 screen. But I am curious to know how this film would have looked had it been designed for a wider screen. Funny enough, the movie is executive produced by Mike Flanagan, who directed one of my favorite films of the year, “The Life of Chuck.” That film also features changing aspect ratios. I wonder how much he and Stuckmann discussed this matter, and if one person seeing the other’s work had an effect on the look of either film.
In the end, despite some flaws, I was riveted by “Shelby Oaks.” It is not destined to become the next all-time classic, but it is a solid horror flick with a likable protagonist. This is the first feature film from Chris Stuckmann, and I am happy he was able to get his vision out there. It is a vision that sometimes comes with a rushed, albeit intriguing script. It is a vision that comes with some minor pacing problems, despite a multitude of well-timed sequences and scares. It is a vision that comes with a middle of the road at best ending, but not one that damages the positive moments that happened prior. I am not saying Chris Stuckmann should avoid writing more films. In fact, he sometimes has a knack for creating a decent scene. That said, I would love to see what he could do if he were to put the pen down and focus on directing something from another writer. That said, if Chris Stuckmann has something else up his sleeve, sign me up. I am going to give “Shelby Oaks” a 7/10.
“Shelby Oaks” is now playing in theaters and is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, look forward to my thoughts on “Good Fortune” and “The Running Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Shelby Oaks?” What did you think about it? Or, have you watched Chris Stuckmann on YouTube? What are your thoughts on his channel? And lastly, who’s your favorite movie critic? …Actually, don’t answer that, you all know it is me. Eat your heart out, Roger Ebert! Let me know what your thoughts are in the comments! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“The Smashing Machine” is directed by Benny Safdie (Uncut Gems, Good Time) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Central Intelligence), Emily Blunt (Edge of Tomorrow, The Girl on the Train), Ryan Bader, Bas Rutten (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Kevin Can Wait), and Oleksandr Usyk. This film is about mixed martial arts fighter Mark Kerr and his life in and outside of the ring.
“The Smashing Machine” is maybe my most anticipated film starring Dwayne Johnson in a long time. I like The Rock, but he is not a thespian. He is beyond charismatic, but I never imagined him potentially holding an Academy Award in his hand. That is until this movie happened. If you are familiar with this film’s director, Benny Safdie, then this may remind you of one of his previous films.
Remember “Uncut Gems?” That film starred Adam Sandler, a talented comedian. However, when it comes to his film roles, he lacks range. The reception of his then recent films like “Pixels” or the “Grown Ups” franchise did not help things either. Having Johnson lead this film results in what one could describe as a departure from his typical fare where he simply plays himself.
This movie has a likable actor leading it, and a solid filmmaker directing it. So my question after seeing it is, “Why did I not enjoy this more?”
Admittedly, I am not much of a sports guy. And I do not know squat about MMA. Maybe that has something to do with it. But I am capable of enjoying other movies about combat sports like “Fighting with My Family,” which interesting enough, literally features The Rock playing himself… Or “Cinderella Man,” an engaging underdog story set during the Great Depression. So, what was missing with this flick? If I were to compare this film with those other two, the first thing that comes to mind is that the lead in this film is not exactly someone I cared for. Both “Fighting with My Family” and “Cinderella Man” have admirable lead characters that I could root for. Even if those films had some cliches, they felt like experiences.
Rather than experiencing “The Smashing Machine,” I felt like I was observing it. To my lack of surprise, Dwayne Johnson is excellent as Mark Kerr. It has to be his greatest performance to date and I can see him being nominated for an Oscar this season. But as I watched this character, very rarely was ever able to attach myself to him. The screenplay has the makings of a masterpiece on paper, but the execution sometimes feels flat. The film is based on true events and the story itself is intriguing as a concept, but it does not stick the landing.
That said, Johnson is not the only standout performance in this film. I came for “The Rock,” but you are like me, chances are you will stay for Emily Blunt, who has fantastic chemistry with her on-screen partner. This should not come as too much of a surprise because the two have previously starred alongside each other in Disney’s “Jungle Cruise,” so they probably have a feel for each other’s rhythm. Thankfully, unlike “Jungle Cruise,” “The Smashing Machine” dives more into each star’s chops in conversational, sometimes heavily physical scenes, rather than having them play a small part in a special effects-heavy adventure.
Going to back “Uncut Gems,” if you really enjoyed the style in which that movie was presented, “The Smashing Machine” is not exactly presented in the same manner, but the two projects feel very similar. I say this because both films are not always the most comfortable to watch. When I watched “Uncut Gems” I found the film to be fun and hilarious despite its constant chaos and ridiculous pace. However, fun is not a word I would use to describe “The Smashing Machine.” Sure, like usual, The Rock has charisma, but the story is often serious. Mark Kerr spends quite a bit of time making those around him uncomfortable, and it thereby made me uncomfortable. Both films’ protagonists also have their clear vices, whether its Howard Ratner’s gambling, or Mark Kerr’s substance abuse.
The scores also feel like cousins. I cannot confirm that is a good thing, because this film’s musical score felt very out of place. Personally, I would have preferred something a bit more rock and roll or on the traditional orchestra side. Some of the tunes sound like they belong in a nightclub from another dimension. Overall, it would be inaccurate to call the music in “The Smashing Machine” incompetent, but it feels like it belongs in something much more psychedellic. Maybe it would work if someone were to make a more low budget version of “2001: A Space Odyssey” and shot it in 16mm instead of 65mm.
Speaking of which, much of this film was shot on 16mm film. I cannot say much of “The Smashing Machine” is ingrained in my memory, but I will remember this film because of its vibe. Even during scenes where things are supposed to feel big, the camera often helps bring things down to earth. Never once does this film feel overly explosive. Sometimes it works and lets the film shine in its core character moments. But things do not always work in the rest of the movie.
“The Smashing Machine” barely had an IMAX release, which kind of shocks me. Sure, “One Battle After Another” and “Tron: Ares” came out at similar times, and both are notable films. “One Battle After Another” has prestige and is shot in VistaVision, and “Tron: Ares” is a big budget Disney flick. But “The Smashing Machine” literally contains a scene shot in IMAX, and I know that from behind the scenes info, as well as watching the movie itself. As the film enters its final scene, the aspect ratio changes, even in regular theaters. Traditionally, when an IMAX-shot film changes to its namesake ratio, I find it to be incredibly riveting. But not this time.
Much of the film was shot in 1.85:1, which is close to the traditional 16:9 widescreen seen on most modern programming. To see the film cover my theater screen in this ratio for a majority of the runtime and then suddenly jump to 1.43:1 was completely jarring. Maybe if I watched this film in a proper IMAX I would have felt different, because those screens are designed for scenes like the one at the end of the film. But the transition in my traditional AMC screen made this scene feel less satisfying, and to add another dose of disappointment, less immersive. It is a small thing to point out, and from a character arc perspective, I feel like the film’s technical specs played a part in describing Mark Kerr’s mood at the time. From that point of view, I get why the film was shot and presented the way it was, but it does not change the fact that the on-screen result of all this feels poorly executed.
In the end, “The Smashing Machine” is one of the biggest disappointments of the year for me. I am probably not going to remember much about this movie in the coming months. And that is kind of sad, because this film could have represented something else for me. It could have simply represented a shift in Dwayne Johnson’s career. In the realm of cinema, Johnson is well known as the big, buff, blockbuster guy. Should he stick to that? Judging by how much money this movie made, he might end up doing that. Although, if he wins an Oscar, that could change. “The Smashing Machine” is by no means an incomprehensible mess. But this movie was not for me. Benny Safdie is by no means on my hate list. I cannot wait to see what he can bring to the table as Bowser Jr. in “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” That said, this is not his best work. I am going to give “The Smashing Machine” a 4/10.
“The Smashing Machine” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for a movie I have been looking to talking about for the past four years, “Shelby Oaks,” directed by first time feature director Chris Stuckmann. If that name sounds familiar, then chances are you have seen him through his film reviews on YouTube. Stuckmann played a part in inspiring me to write on this blog, so I look forward to finally talking about this film. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” “Good Fortune,” and “The Running Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “The Smashing Machine?” What did you think about it? Or, in the spirit of the Safdie brothers, are you looking forward to Josh Safdie’s “Marty Supreme?” The film looks as kinetic as can be and I am here for it. Let me know your thoughts down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“A House of Dynamite” is directed by Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, The Hurt Locker) and stars Idris Elba (The Suicide Squad, Pacific Rim), Rebecca Ferguson (Dune, Reminiscence), Gabriel Basso (Hillbilly Elegy, The Night Agent), Jared Harris (Mad Men, Chernobyl), and Tracy Letts (Homeland, Lady Bird). This film showcases different people’s perspectives as the U.S. tries to respond to an intercontinental ballistic missile.
If you know me in person, you know that when I hear the term “Netflix movie,” I automatically go, “NEXT!” When you are a studio dedicated to hiring some of the biggest stars and putting them in a paint by numbers or completely forgettable story like “Red Notice” or “The Gray Man,” I start to think your track record needs improvement. That said, Netflix can occasionally deliver a diamond in the rough. Like many of its competitors, Netflix will usually spend the end of the year delivering their prestige films. These are movies that are likely to get some awards contention like “The Irishman” or “The Power of the Dog.” This year, one of Netflix’s prestige films happens to be “A House of Dynamite,” directed by the first woman to win an Academy Award for Best Director, Kathryn Bigelow. Like some of her other movies, this one involves a serious subject matter and in some cases, might make for a tough watch.
Upon my first impression, “A House of Dynamite” is exactly what I just said. It is one of those films that as soon as I finished watching it, I thought to myself, I need to go home and find something comfortable to put on the television. As soon as the movie was over, I left the theater, got in my car, got takeout, went home, turned on my TV, as well as my 4K Blu-ray player, and popped in “A Bug’s Life.” I sometimes talk about certain films going for the emotions, but this one goes for the emotions in a different way. It goes for the emotions not so much to make you sad, but more so to make you hopeless on top of being sad.
“A House of Dynamite” is this year’s “Oppenheimer.” It is not as good as “Oppenheimer,” but the two are close in terms of quality. “A House of Dynamite” is presented in such a surprisingly brisk pace. I am gobsmacked on how intriguing they ended up making certain segments of this movie. On paper, the movie sounds like pure cinema, but that may depend on how much detail that paper contains. If I told you that this movie was about a bunch of people trying to deal with an intercontinental ballistic missile that is on its way to the continental United States, you might be sold. The concept sold me. But I was not expecting it to be done in the way the filmmakers’ decided to go about it.
The movie is a case of more talk than action. We never see the missile. The closest we get to seeing the missile is through detection screens indicating where exactly in the air it happens to be.
The film also seems to take a page from “Top Gun: Maverick,” because if you remember that film, it never names the enemy. I think this is actually a somewhat wise move, and the way the movie went about it is surprisingly effective.
If I had to look ahead months from now, I cannot see “A House of Dynamite” winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I can see it being nominated. However, winning seems to be off the table. This is not necessarily because it is a Netflix movie, which, like it or not, can come as a turnoff when your awards body is mostly dedicated to movies in theaters. The main reason why I cannot see this film winning is because if I had to name the film’s most significant imperfection, it would be that the characters do not appear to take center stage. The film appears to be more plot-driven than character-driven.
There is an extensive list of characters in the movie, but I could not tell you any of their names. In fact, in the case of Idris Elba, whose name appears first on the cast, he is credited as “POTUS.” Not to digress, I never imagined Elba playing the President of the United States, but I think on paper it is a great pick. In execution, he plays his part well. “A House of Dynamite” does not really have a central character, but the President is arguably the core of the movie.
The film, like many great stories, is presented in three acts, but it presents its acts somewhat similarly to “The Last Duel,” which shows the same story three times from alternative perspectives. The perspectives are packed with differences, but they all take place around the same time and involve the same incident.
Having seen the film, I would love to know how this movie was written. I want to know which perspective Noah Oppenheim started with, how long it took for him to mesh everything together, and how long it took for him to decide on the order of the three acts. For all I know, it could be a boring backstory, but it does not change the fact that this is one of the most unique screenplays of the year. As for the order of the acts that was chosen, I thought it was perfect. Each act seems to hint at things that become more relevant later, and the hints enhanced the acts that followed as they happened. If this film follows in the footsteps of other Netflix projects like “Roma” or “Marriage Story,” I would love to see a Criterion Collection physical copy of the film be brought to market, because I would kill to see a bonus feature on the process that went into putting the screenplay together.
I am curious to know how people will perceive the ending, because without spoilers, let’s just say that the film does not end in a way that I think a lot of people would expect. I do not outright hate how this film ends, but I cannot say it was satisfying either. It almost makes the film feel incomplete. Once again, the screenplay has such a unique layout, therefore the ending is also fittingly unique. But it does not change the fact that it is lacking an impact. It feels like the movie had more to tell but decided to forget about whatever was ahead. Does the ending take away from what made the rest of the movie good? Not really. Sure, the film does not stick the landing once it concludes, but by no means does it split its head open.
In the end, “A House of Dynamite” is one of the most thrilling pictures of 2025. Pardon my overuse of Christopher Nolan film comparisons, but the film somewhat reminds me of “Dunkirk.” This is due to the recently mentioned imperfection of the movie not exactly having a main character. Instead, the closest thing to it would be the main event itself. And it most certainly helps that the main event is quite exciting. The film overall is intense and nail-biting. And this is without getting to see the nuclear missile itself! Is this is Kathryn Bigelow’s best movie? No. I have such a soft spot for “Point Break.” Although if you are looking for another banger on her resume, look no further than “A House of Dynamite.” I am going to give “A House of Dynamite” an 8/10.
“A House of Dynamite” is now available on Netflix for all subscribers.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “The Smashing Machine!” Stay tuned! Also, look forward to my thoughts on “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” “Good Fortune,” and “The Running Man.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A House of Dynamite?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Kathryn Bigelow movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Bone Lake” is directed by Mercedes Bryce Morgan (Fixation, Five Points) and stars Maddie Hasson (Twisted, Malignant), Alex Roe (The 5th Wave, Hot Summer Nights), Andra Nechita (Inhumans, Matlock), and Marco Pigossi (High Tide, Gen V). This film centers around a couple whose vacation is interrupted when another couple shows up at the house where they happen to be staying, and eventually thwart them into a string of mind games and manipulation.
My exposure to “Bone Lake” before checking out the film last month in theaters was minimal. On top of reviews and posters, the little online marketing I happened to see, appeared to tap into the movie’s sensual nature. There is a saying that sex sells, and it seems to have sold me.
But good marketing does not automatically guarantee a solid flick, and a solid flick “Bone Lake” is not. Is this movie broken? No. In fact, it starts off quite well. It introduces a couple who arrive at their vacation rental, enjoy some intimate moments together, only to find out that they supposedly booked the house the same weekend as another couple. Okay, maybe the filmmaker really enjoyed “Barbarian,” which starts off in almost the same way. Although this film starts off with four characters getting into a conflict rather than two. I cannot blame them for taking inspiration from one of the decade’s best horror films.
Around the first 10, 20 minutes, I was onboard. It introduces both couples and puts them in a situation that neither of them want to be a part of, but they make do. Once the film gets into its first act of backstabbing, that’s where this Jenga tower starts to loosen, and eventually, topple. And it is sad, because backstabbing and a lack of trust seems to take center stage for a majority of the film’s runtime.
The film sometimes feels tonally inconsistent. Do not get me wrong, I can obviously claim that this is a horror flick, and I have a strong feeling most people would agree with me for that assessment. But the characters have this grounded nature to them, but they progressively evolve into personalities that can be found in a Saturday morning cartoon, either through their general tone, or their backstories.
I did not think I would be bringing up an old GEICO commercial during this review. That said, for those of you who remember the ad with the voiceover, “If you’re in a horror movie, you make poor decisions, it’s what you do,” I thought about that ad at least once or twice while watching this movie, because there are some choices the characters make that had me wondering about their IQ. Maybe it is unfair of me to say this because I am not a character in the film and rather someone observing them, but as this movie progressed, I could not help but wonder why the main couple would not simply try to leave at the first sign of trouble. When it comes to brainwashing, these two seem to be fairly easy targets. For those of you who watch the “Pitch Meeting” sketches on YouTube, you’ll understand… There are certain moments that take place throughout the story for what appears to be only one reason. That reason being, “so the movie can happen.”
There is a decent movie somewhere in “Bone Lake.” It has plenty of flaws, no doubt. It could be scarier. The characters could be written better. But I will admit that I liked some of the production design. The locations were not bad. Some of the camerawork is creative. And even though the movie does not progress fantastically, it does start off with a pinch of intrigue. The tone appears balanced at first, only for said balance to fizzle over time. I probably would have liked this movie more if it constructed its characters like they are human beings, rather than cartoons or puppets.
The film also builds up its main couple rather well. After all they are on vacation, they’re alone, so of course, they have sex. The film does a good job at establishing how Diego and Sage feel about their relationship from a sexual perspective. It shows the divide the two seem to have in that regard, and while there are some elements of the movie that topple, that is one that works with time. This is especially true when considering the tension and rivalry that tends to build between Diego and Sage and the other couple, Will and Cin.
There is a saying that a bad ending can ruin a good movie. In the case of “Bone Lake,” the opposite is true. This film, as explained, is not my favorite of the year. But what happens in the last scene is satisfying and also does a good job at fulfilling a certain part of the movie that was heavily built up. I wish I could explain it, but the film does end on a rather satisfying note that if I were to dive into it any further would mean I would have to drop enormous spoilers. This does not mean I am recommending the film, it just means the ending is clever despite the project’s other flaws.
This is a film that gets crazier and crazier as it goes along, but not exactly in a good way. If anything it kind of reminds me of “Argylle” where the story becomes more annoying with each reveal or twist. By the time the film enters the third act, a part of me wanted to tune out. Then again, part of me sees half of this film as a fun watch with drinks perhaps. I do not drink alcohol, but I can see this as a film where one can invite some friends, get schnockered, and let the fun begin. Whether this is a positive or a negative, I will let you be the judge. Despite this movie featuring two main couples and having a name that is a double entendre, I unfortunately cannot say this is the best date movie. Also, despite this movie trying to go for a tense, eerie rivalry between two couples, I unfortunately cannot say this is the best horror flick. This is not scary, not interesting. Honestly, it is rather forgettable. With a 94 minute runtime, the film is short, but it is certainly not sweet.
In the end, “Bone Lake” doesn’t satisfy. Are there building blocks for a good movie? Sure. But at best, this film feels middle of the road. It is a well-crafted and polished-looking film for what it is, but I wish I liked the characters and story a lot more. I was engaged in the beginning, but the film lost me around act two and kept me unplugged in act three. If you want to see a better horror movie involving a double-booking at a vacation rental, just go watch “Barbarian.” I am going to give “Bone Lake” a 4/10.
“Bone Lake” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “A House of Dynamite!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” and “Good Fortune.” 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 “Bone Lake?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Barbarian?” What did you think about that movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“Tron: Ares” is directed by Joachim Rønning (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil) and stars Jared Leto (Morbius, Blade Runner 2049), Greta Lee (Russian Doll, The Morning Show), Evan Peters (Invasion, X-Men: Days of Future Past), Jodie Turner-Smith (A Big Bold Beautiful Journey, The Last Ship), Hasan Minhaj (Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, The Daily Show), Arturo Castro (Narcos, Broad City), Gillian Anderson (The X-Files, Sex Education), and Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, True Grit). This is the third film in the “Tron” franchise and is about the rivalry between ENCOM and Dillinger Systems as both corporations attempt to bring digital entities into the real world.
“Tron” is a franchise that I do not think about much these days, but as a teenager, these movies were my jam. When it comes to special effects, both of these films are marvels. I never had a chance to watch “Tron: Legacy” in a theater when I was 11 years old. While I still had not watched the original “Tron” by that time, I am jealous of those who got to watch “Legacy” on the big screen, especially in IMAX 3D.
In preparation for “Tron: Ares,” I went back and watched both “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy.” While neither film is perfect, they both hold up. Sure, the effects in the original might not fly today, but they have such a vintage charm. They have an aesthetic I do not find in many other films, new or old. Between the prior two installments, I was a little more pleased with the look of “Tron,” which I found to be more vivid and appealing in terms of color. As a story, I also found it to be better paced. Not to say that “Tron: Legacy” is bad, but I found Kevin Flynn to be more inviting as a protagonist than Sam.
But the thing about “Tron” and “Tron: Legacy” is that both movies have protagonists whose adventures and character arcs I can fondly appreciate and remember, even if I liked one more than the other. “Tron: Ares,” across the board, has flat characters in comparison. Few, if any, kept my attention. And when one of them did have my attention, their dialogue felt fairly cookie cutter. Am I going to remember Julian Dillinger? Probably not. Elisabeth Dillinger? Don’t think so. Eve Kim? I don’t know. In fact, if I had to name a favorite character in the movie, it would be a monumental undertaking. I would have to get to the point where I would have to name aspects of the film that are not characters as my top dogs.
The best characters in “Tron: Ares” are as follows… Kevin Flynn, played by the legendary Jeff Bridges who is back once again to reprise his role… The Nine Inch Nails… for providing some killer tracks that are not quite on the level of Daft Punk’s “Legacy” music, but manage to hold their own… And of course, the CGI… It is full of detail and eye candy both in the real world and beyond. If I am referring to music and special effects as my favorite characters, it is a telltale sign that “Tron: Ares” is not a good movie. In fact, this is easily the weakest of the three “Tron” movies so far, and maybe ever depending on how well this film does financially. As of publishing this review, the movie’s been out for almost a month and it has not made its budget back.
Just because the movie is weak, does not mean it is lacking in cool moments. But to be honest, I do not know if this movie is best designed for newcomers. On the surface, one could argue “Tron: Ares” is newcomer-friendly due to most of the cast and characters not appearing in the prior two installments. It is to a certain degree, a clean slate. But the movie also noticeably relies on fan service and nostalgia. Admittedly, as someone who has seen the prior two movies, there are select instances where I was shaking in my chair like a rocket ready to blast off.
The more I think about “Tron: Ares” the more it reminds me of “Jurassic World: Dominion.” “Tron: Ares” is significantly more appealing, but the film’s negatives tend to match, partially because both films sell themselves on the hook that its threat is “coming to the real world.” Granted, the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park” have always been part of the real world, but they have been closed off from towns and cities whereas beings from inside the Grid are exiting their digital society and entering our own. That said, I will give “Tron: Ares” an enormous edge against “Jurassic World: Dominion” because the former actually seems to commit to its idea of digital beings entering the real world, whereas the execution of the dinosaurs entering the real world in the latter feels like an afterthought at times.
Even though I find “Tron: Ares” to not be that good of a film, I do think there are glimmers of decency to be found. While the story of the film itself ends up being a bore, I do think the plot of “Tron: Ares,” which involves companies racing against each other in bringing digital constructs to reality, feels somewhat reminiscent of how tech companies today are heavily pushing artificial intelligence. Part of the similarities are also revealed when the movie exposes a significant flaw regarding the Ares character. The movie not only reminds me of how much these companies seem to be pushing AI, but they will likely go so far to brush away or hide drawbacks that could heavily affect the product or the consumer.
“Tron: Ares” continues to prove that Jared Leto cannot catch a break. He often finds himself in one of two unfortunate situations… Situation one, he is in a movie that does not do well in terms of box office. Situation two, he is in a movie that does not do well in terms of the reviews. He is particularly doing a lot of damage in geek culture. In the past decade, he’s received an off-screen death in the DCEU, bad reviews for his movie in Sony’s Marvel universe, low box office returns on “Blade Runner 2049,” and now, it looks like another science fiction franchise has been met with the curse of Jared Leto. Do not interpret this as me hating on Jared Leto. He is a phenomenal actor and can give a solid performance when cast in the right role. In fact, he is great as Ares. He kind of reminded of a Sheldon Cooper-type. There are one or two scenes from this film where I internally replaced Leto’s face with that of Jim Parsons. To be clear, and this is nothing against Jim Parsons, I am glad they cast Jared Leto instead. It’s best for all parties involved. After Parsons finished “The Big Bang Theory,” I would imagine the last person he’d want to play is a Sheldon Cooper-wannabe.
Whether you see this movie in 2D or 3D is your call. I will defend either choice, but as someone who traditionally does not care for 3D as much as I did when I was 13, 14 years old, I will admit the 3D upcharge for this film is completely justified. Between select sequences where the entire screen is covered in digital effects, to some pretty cool action scenes, this movie makes the extra cost for the glasses worthwhile.
In the end “Tron: Ares” is far and away my least favorite “Tron” installment yet. As far as big budget films go, it is, thankfully, not as insufferable as “A Minecraft Movie.” Though that comparison may not be fair because I had no previous attachment to the “Minecraft” property before going to see the film, whereas with “Tron” I did. Despite the film’s flaws, the attachment did help when it came to the film’s fan service, which was sometimes borderline forced, but at others, it completely flowed. “Tron: Ares” often looks great and sounds great. I just wish it had a screenplay that was just as great. I am going to give “Tron: Ares” a 4/10.
“Tron: Ares” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Bone Lake!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” “Frankenstein,” and “Good Fortune.” 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 “Tron: Ares?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Tron” movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is directed by Mary Bronstein (Round Town Girls, Yeast) and stars Rose Byrne (Neighbors, Bridesmaids), Conan O’Brien (Late Night with Conan O’Brien, Conan), Danielle Macdonald (Unbelievable, The Tourist), Christian Slater (Mr. Robot, The Wife), and A$AP Rocky (Zoolander 2, Monster). This film is about a woman named Linda whose life and sanity hangs on by a thread as she has to deal with her child’s illness, her job, her husband, and a missing person.
I saw the trailer for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” during my screening for “Eleanor the Great,” and I was quite impressed with how much drama and stakes that piece of marketing was able to show off in just a couple of minutes. It gave a good tease to the movie’s tone, particularly endless anxiety. That may sound a little overdramatic. The world is not ending in this film. No evil force is trying to take over the universe. But that does not mean the film is incapable of showcasing the constant struggle that stands in the protagonist’s path.
I also noticed in the trailer, not to mention the poster, that this movie stars Conan O’Brien. Odd choice for a dramatic role, but it is cool to see him getting work. We’ll get back to him later.
As for the movie itself, this is one of the best of the year. “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is basically 2025’s “Uncut Gems.” The story is not exactly the same, but a lot of the visuals, shots, and edits feel like they come out of that 2019 thriller. It should not be a surprise, considering this film is also being distributed by A24, and Josh Safdie just so happens to be a producer. The two movies feel like they have similar DNA. There was one visually trippy sequence about 5 to 10 minutes in containing voiceovers that kind of reminded me of the scene from the beginning of “Uncut Gems” where we are flying through the gem. Even in scenes where the dialogue is a bit slowed down, there is often a breakneck pace. Part of this is because of everything Rose Byrne’s character, Linda, has to deal with.
I am not a parent. I do not know if I will ever be a parent. We shall see. But this film does a great job showcasing the constant stress of being a parent. Granted, Linda’s situation is a bit more extreme considering her child is ill. At the same time, her husband’s basically out of the picture, and her home is falling apart. As a result of the latter, she has to find a place to stay until things get better. Even as someone who does not have kids, I have massive respect for parents and everything they do for their children. This film in particular reinforces my appreciation for them, especially moms. Every mom’s journey is different, but for Linda, several curveballs are being thrown into her path at once. It is almost impossible for her to catch them all.
“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” may star Rose Byrne, but she is not the one who sold me on this movie. That would be Conan O’Brien.
Yes, that one. Which one would I be referring to? How many Conans do you know personally?
I may be letting some personal fanaticism get in the way, but if I see Conan O’Brien’s name on something, I instantly become more curious about it. Even for a project like this, which was probably one of the last things I would expect him to take on. O’Brien is naturally funny and kinetic. But in the case of “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” the late night host-turned podcaster seems to be taking a page from say Jordan Peele, who went on to make horror movies like “Get Out.” After all, both are known for their comedic talents, and if there is one thing many comedians know about, it’s timing. I laugh super hard at Conan O’Brien’s work not only because of the things he does, but when he does those things. This is also true for his role in this film. Despite the story being serious, the movie managed to get laughs out of me. One big laugh was courtesy of O’Brien himself. There is a scene where his and Byrne’s characters are sitting in a room together at a therapy office. Byrne’s getting something off her chest and O’Brien slowly takes in Byrne’s rant, then says… “Okay…” There are very few instances where the use of the word “okay” as a full statement has ever been funnier. The film definitely feels more dramatic than comedic, but Conan O’Brien’s character, much like his real life persona, is naturally hilarious through his presence and choice of words.
Heck, this film also has A$AP Rocky in it, whose acting experience appears to be rather limited. I still need time to think about what my favorite cast in a 2025 film happens to be. But I will verify that “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is certainly one of the most unique casts I’ve come across in a film released this year. Despite some unexpected names on the lineup, there is not a single bad performance in this film.
“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is a couple hours of complete and total chaos. It only offers a few moments to breathe, and if it were not for its talented cast led by Rose Byrne, it probably would not work as well as it did. Major credit also has to go to the work done behind the scenes. Lucian Johnston’s edits are as smooth as butter, despite them belonging in a film as dramatic as this. The shots brought to life by cinematographer Christopher Messina are meticulously framed. I also have to give kudos to Mary Bronstein, who not only wrote the film, but also directed it.
This feels like a singular vision. I could have never come up with a movie like this myself. And the movie is all the better because someone like me was not in charge of it. If this movie were written or directed by a man, I can guarantee it probably would not be as good as it is. This movie comes off as if it was written by a mother, most likely for mothers. I am not saying this movie is exclusively to be enjoyed by mothers. But I think a lot of mothers will appreciate this film in one way or another. That said, Bronstein is a mother herself. To top things off, while not entirely based on true events, the film is in fact inspired by Bronstein’s time caring for a sick child. This film is written from the heart and just so happens to be powerful enough to send chills down my spine. I have no idea how much money this film is going to make, but I highly encourage anyone reading this to give this movie a chance. It is a raw, thrilling story that may not be every mother’s personal experience, but is likely something close to every mother’s worst nightmare.
In the end, “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is more than just one of the best movie titles of 2025. It just so happens to be one of the best movies of 2025. As an experience, this film is incredible. Despite its unique cast, it offers some of the year’s best performances. Mary Bronstein offers a vision that only a mother like her could give. And the movie maintains a neverending level of anxiety liken unto “Uncut Gems.” I am going to give “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” a 9/10.
“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Tron: Ares.” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Bone Lake,” “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” and Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” 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 “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you really enjoyed about parenting? On that note, if you guys have not seen last year’s brilliant animated film “The Wild Robot,” please give it a chance whenever you can. Although some of you reading this probably have seen it because it did win Best Picture at the 7th Jack Awards. If you have not seen it, listen to those people who voted and give the movie a shot! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
“One Battle After Another” is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Licorice Pizza, The Master) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, Inception), Sean Penn (Daddio, Licorice Pizza), Benicio del Toro (Guardians of the Galaxy, Sicario), Regina Hall (Think Like a Man, Scary Movie), Teyana Taylor (White Men Can’t Jump, Coming 2 America), and Chase Infiniti (Presumed Innocent). Inspired by Thomas Pynchon’s novel “Vineland,” this film is about an ex-revolutionary who must save his daughter from a corrupt military official.
As much as I beat a dead horse with this phrase, I only say it because it is true. To me, there are many cases where an artist can only be as good as their last project. Sure, Yorgos Lanthimos is a director with an admirable hustle, but after “Kinds of Forgettable–” err, I mean “Kinds of Kindness,” I am a little nervous about his latest project, “Bugonia.” Kind of like Lanthimos, I was nervous about what would be in store for “One Battle After Another” especially after the infuriating couple of hours I had watching “Licorice Pizza.” Is it a well made film? Sure, in certain regards. But in terms of characterization, plot, perhaps even pacing, I found the end result to be fairly off-putting. It is not to say that Paul Thomas Anderson is an incompetent director. While it has been years since I have seen “The Master,” I do remember it being beautifully made, so Anderson has his ups and downs.
I saw this film a week after it came out. Not because I wanted to stall on it, but because by complete coincidence, I happened to be staying in New York City for a weekend, and I wanted to see the movie in IMAX 70mm. Anytime you hear people say that they saw the next great masterpiece, it is a sentiment that you have to take with a grain of salt. I will only believe the hype when I see it. Plus, the marketing did not do a lot for me. It gave me an idea of the tone, but I thought there was no real oomph to what was on screen. The biggest selling point seemed to be the names Leonardo DiCaprio and Paul Thomas Anderson. I am not critiquing this. If you have talent, sell it. But as far as the movie itself, the marketing did not do it for me.
Before this goes off the rails any further, I must say “One Battle After Another” is a magnificent piece of cinema. Is it my favorite film of the year? Not quite. But I am also having trouble coming up with genuine problems. There are problems that come to mind, but if my reviews for “Risky Business” or “Revenge of the Nerds” shows anything, I can still dig a movie despite its flaws. One personal problem would probably force me to spoil part of the film’s climax. But let’s just say that as “cool” and “shocking” as it was for the movie to unveil a choice they made for a major character, I questioned the logic behind said choice. I also find the film’s pacing to mostly work, though I must admit that the movie does start off slow and gets better as it goes. This is not to say that the film is bad, but if I had to name a weakest part of the film, it would probably be the first twenty minutes or half hour.
By the way, if you are looking for a short movie, you will want to sit this one out. “One Battle After Another” is two hours and fifty minutes long. I know for some of you this might be intimidating, but at the risk of sounding like a pervert, size does not matter, it is what you do with it. And Paul Thomas Anderson does his best to deliver a spectacular vision made for the big screen.
If you get a chance to see “One Battle After Another” in a theater, please do. The film is easy on the eyes thanks to Michael Bauman’s cinematography, as well as the ears courtesy of Jonny Greenwood’s score. There was a point during the film’s climax where my chair was vibrating like I was at an NFL game.
Speaking of cinematography and camerawork, this film is one of the cleanest I have seen this year. While “One Battle After Another” may not be the most colorful movie, it makes the most of its rather limited palette to the point where everything that’s on the screen pops. There is also a riveting chase scene towards the end of the film that basically turns the road itself into a character. The film contains a shot where we see the road winding up and down and it helped set the mood for what’s to come. Visually, this movie needs no notes. It is also heavily enhanced when watched in the film’s native 1.5:1 aspect ratio, which is typically used for VistaVision.
Going back to the marketing of this film, I mentioned that one of the biggest selling points for “One Battle After Another” is Leonardo DiCaprio. And why wouldn’t he be? He has starred in some of the best films in the past couple decades. Like usual, DiCaprio gives his performance his all. Also, the more I think about his performance, the more I come to a conclusion that I am proud to wear on my sleeve. There are not many other people that I could see playing a character of this type as well as Leonardo DiCaprio could. Maybe Brad Pitt… Perhaps Sam Rockwell… Those two names come to mind. But the more I look at this role and think about the way it was executed, it comes off as if it was written with Leonardo DiCaprio in mind. We see him start off as part of revolutionary group as Pat Calhoun, and he later evolves into a washed-up stoner who goes by Bob Ferguson. You can the see the range coming from DiCaprio as he effectively portrays multiple portions of his character’s life. I also found some scenes featuring the character to be laugh out loud funny. There is a phenomenal gag in this film involving a “rendezvous point” that had me rolling on the floor.
Paul Thomas Anderson and Leonardo DiCaprio are celebrated veterans in the industry, but “One Battle After Another” may also be responsible for some people’s big breaks, including Chase Infiniti, who plays Leonardo DiCaprio’s child. I dug the back and forth between these two. Going back to the evolution of DiCaprio’s character, I thought Infiniti did an superb job at channeling her character’s distaste for her father’s resorting to drugs or his overprotectiveness. Chase Infiniti’s career is likely only getting started and this film is going to open so many doors for her. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
In the end, “One Battle After Another” is an experience. Is this my favorite movie of the year? No. But it is an exquisitely crafted piece of cinema in multiple regards. It is one of the best looking movies of the year. It has one of the best casts of the year. The story, while sometimes slow, is engaging. It is a satisfying film that balances serious topics like political extremes and revolution while also having time to insert scenes where Leonardo DiCaprio acts like a complete buffoon. This movie is a massively successful balancing act. I am going to give “One Battle After Another” an 8/10.
“One Battle After Another” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.
Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Tron: Ares,” “Bone Lake,” “A House of Dynamite,” “The Smashing Machine,” “Shelby Oaks,” and Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” 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 “One Battle After Another?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Paul Thomas Anderson movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!
Scene Before 