Cinema

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!

The Creator (2023): A Timely Sci-fi Story Featuring Heavy Inspiration from Numerous Predecessors

Posted on by Jack Drees

“The Creator” is directed by Gareth Edwards (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Godzilla) and stars John David Washington (Tenet, Amsterdam), Gemma Chan (Eternals, Crazy Rich Asians), Ken Watanabe (Inception, The Last Samurai), Sturgill Simpson (Queen & Slim, The Hunt), and Allison Janey (Mom, I, Tonya). This film is set during a time where humanity and artificial intelligence are at war. The story shares what happens when one human soldier finds the robots’ secret weapon. A young child.

As a science fiction junkie, I feel like we have been spoiled over the past decade in regards to IP between “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Star Wars,” and depending on how the second film ends up doing months from now, “Dune.” Science fiction is easily my favorite genre in film. It can range all over the place in tone, atmosphere, and can sometimes be really thought-provoking. Going back to the “Star Wars” example, Gareth Edwards has honestly made my second favorite thing that has been done during the Disney “Star Wars” era, specifically “Rogue One.” I love how that movie manages to enhance a certain plot hole from the original, introduces a great story and concept, and unleashes an utterly likable antagonist in Director Krennic. Now, when it comes to the final product, it is hard to determine how much Edwards had to do with everything in it, but he handled that movie perfectly. It is easily a highlight of the “Star Wars” franchise. His “Godzilla” movie… Well, I guess it is fine. Not perfect, but I thought the climax was worth watching.

But if you look at Gareth Edwards’s resume in recent years, you would notice that he, like some other directors, has descended deep into popular properties. “The Creator” is a bit of a departure from his recent work as it is an original idea. I was really looking forward to this film because it was an original piece in addition to one that has Edwards’s touch. If you have both of these things, it may summon a winning combo. And thankfully, it does. For the most part, that is.

I have heard other people praising this movie as if it is amongst the top sci-fi classics. I disagree. That said, I think that this is a solid outing for Gareth Edwards. John David Washington is good in the lead role. It is a marvelous debut for Madeleine Yuna Voyles acting-wise. One of the more controversial topics in film is the idea of hiring prominent child actors. After all, they’re young, they do not have the experience that more adult actors do, and there is also the issue of labor laws. But I have to say, Madeleine Yuna Voyles handles the material given to her with utter ease. She is incredible throughout the picture and I would love to see more from her. I honestly could not believe this was her first role.

Much like many other sci-fi classics through the ages, “The Creator” did a fine job at making me think. If there is one thing to note about this film, I think they released this at the perfect time. “The Creator” has come out at a time where artificial intelligence is already here, we are using it, and we honestly do not know where that is going to take us as a society. If there is any reason why you should see this movie, there is a good chance that it may remind you of something that is happening in your life. More and more people are handling technology and A-I to the point where it makes me wonder where we will take the technology, or where said technology will take us. This movie establishes that certain sectors of mankind should have no problem destroying A-I because it does not have emotions, it is just programming. It cannot “feel” death. But this movie makes me wonder what we will interpret as the greater good should A-I be taken to a point one could consider to be too far. The movie, on a surface level, shows what happens when A-I becomes a part of our everyday lives and we eventually resist it, but there are also many other people out there who refuse to give it up. To some people, it is so essential that they cannot see themselves living without it. To them, it is a part of evolution. It is like a generation gap except with a segment of the world.

That said, when I say that, the film also seems to treat A-I the same way another enjoyable sci-fi film, “District 9,” treats aliens. The film does suggest that A-I can be considered a threat for the most part, but it also shows that A-I kind of blended with humans over the years to the point where the two groups work together sometimes. Speaking of comparisons, “The Creator” very much reminds me of another one of my favorite science fiction films, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” Only in this case, the roles are reversed where the kid is the robot and the adult is the human. I am not saying that this movie is as good as those, but if you want a proper set of comparisons, these are the two that instantly come to mind. But there are plenty of others I could make too.

This film reminds me of “Rogue One” from its aesthetic which seems to have been carried over by Gareth Edwards. In fact sometimes various environment have a more down to earth “Star Wars” vibe. Obviously with the technology aspect, “2001” comes to mind. And speaking of Gareth Edwards films, you could even say “Godzilla” is an easy comparison to make given how a major catalyst for events to come throughout the movie happens to be a nuclear explosion. Maybe I am overthinking this, but I wanted just a little more out of “The Creator.”

“The Creator,” despite its original name, spends a lot of time taking things that have worked in prior science fiction stories and putting them all in one package. This is nothing new. I compare films all the time, whether they are good, bad, or in between. But with “The Creator,” the comparisons are abundant, perhaps not in the best way. I understand that as stories continue to be told, it becomes harder to come up with something new. But when this movie came out, I felt like that was what was being delivered to us. Instead we got “District 9” meets “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” with some other ideas in the mix. Both of those are really good movies. I saw “District 9” not long before seeing “The Creator” and had a good time with it. “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is a hallmark of the science fiction genre and does a really neat job at addressing its A-I infused message. When it comes to “The Creator,” I am going to look back at it and call it the film that tried to be the next “Terminator,” only to remind me of why I would rather watch “Terminator 2.” Or even the first “Terminator” for that matter. I think “The Creator” is a fine watch, and if you do go and support it in theaters, I think you are doing yourself a favor because it is a nice choice amongst the catalog of movies out right now. You cannot go wrong with it. But I honestly think the movie is slightly lacking in substance and despite it trying to present itself as a new idea, it feels somewhat familiar.

If I had to name the biggest positive of the movie, it is not the fact that it is an original movie being made today. If you look hard enough, you will find them in almost every corner. What matters is going to support them. And of course it would also help if the movie itself is good, which this one is. But this movie cost $80 million to make. There have been cheaper films, and there have also been more expensive films. But they use the budget nicely. Because effects-wise, the film honestly looks superior to some of the bigger blockbusters we are getting nowadays. If you look at a couple movies from last year like “Moonfall,” which cost $150 million, or even “Thor: Love and Thunder,” which cost $250 million, I would honestly say that “The Creator” packs in more polish and pizzaz than both of those examples. $80 million is a lot of money, but when you consider how much certain films are being made for in these times, I think the money was utilized to its full potential. When it comes to the world of “The Creator,” I was in awe. But once the movie concluded, I left wanting more. And I do not mean a sequel. I mean more in terms of what we got in the span of a couple hours. What we got was decent, and the movie does admittedly fly by pacing-wise. But if you ask me, it could have been better.

In the end, I had high expectations for “The Creator,” and walking out, maybe I should have considered whether they were too high. That said, it was a fine one time watch. “The Creator” has a marvelous idea behind it with a decent message and interesting characters. Performance-wise, Allison Janey is a standout as Howell. The movie does an excellent job at building a world that I could sometimes get lost in, even if it at times feels like a world from somewhere else. The characters are likable, the performances are good, and this includes the gem of a debut from Madeleine Yuna Voyles. She is going places. “The Creator” is not gonna be on my top 10 of the year, but I will say it is a fine movie. I am going to give “The Creator” a 7/10.

“The Creator” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “The Creator,” you might want to know that I have reviews coming up for “Dumb Money” and “It Lives Inside.” 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 “The Creator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of Gareth Edwards’s films he has done thus far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Gladiator (2000): A Colossal Epic of Roman Glory

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! Happy to have you all tune into this latest film review as we continue Ridley Scottober! A month-long event where I talk about four Ridley Scott-directed films, all for your reading pleasure. This is the second entry to the series, and it is an exciting one. “Gladiator.” I assure you, I was looking forward to watching this movie, and now I equally look forward to talking about it. And if you want to check out the first entry of Ridley Scottober, feel free to read my review for “Body of Lies.” But if you plan to stick around, please enjoy my thoughts on Ridley Scott’s 2000 Academy Award Best Picture winner.

“Gladiator” is directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien) and stars Russell Crowe (The Insider, L.A. Confidential), Joaquin Phoenix (Clay Pigeons, 8MM), Connie Nielsen (The Devil’s Advocate, Rushmore), Oliver Reed (The Three Musketeers, Oliver!), Derek Jacobi (Hamlet, Dead Again), Djimon Hounsou (Deep Rising, Amistad), and Richard Harris (Unforgiven, Patriot Games). This film is set during the glory of Rome, and centers around General Maximumus Decimus Meridius, a general who becomes a slave who intends to seek revenge against those who brought him there in addition to killing his family.

I have a soft spot for Russell Crowe, but part of me does not know if I can legally say that, as I have not watched “Gladiator” until this review. Why? It is for the same reason I mentioned for “Body of Lies” in that review. I bought the Blu-ray years ago. In fact, I bought “Gladiator” almost a year before “Body of Lies,” but I just never got around to it until now. I had no vendetta against either of these movies, but one of the complications of being a movie collector is being able to sit down and watch the new films I buy because I have so many and sometimes want to revisit some favorite titles. One of the silver linings of this series and other review marathons I have done in the past like the “Mortal Kombat” films and some of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies like “At World’s End,” is that it helps me get around to titles that I have never seen before. In fact, “Gladiator” is one of those movies, much more so than “Body of Lies,” that when you bring up the fact of never seeing it, there is a chance someone will ask if you are a real movie fan.

I am a real movie fan. In fact those of you reading this questioning my moves for years should be jealous, because I am getting experience this film for the first time. Some may call it being late to the party, I call it a long-awaited ounce of excitement.

About 23 years after its release, “Gladiator” is still in many conversations as a master class film. It is #36 on the IMDb top 250. The film won five Oscars, including Best Picture. Over in Britain, it snatched four BAFTAs, including Best Film. There is plenty of proof to show how much the film has stood as a testament to the industry and the sword-and-sandal genre. But these are just the opinions of other people. There is only one opinion that matters here, and that is the one of the Movie Reviewing Moron. So, what did I think of “Gladiator?”

Sorry in advance… I am “glad” I saw it.

“Gladiator” goes to show the power of first impressions, because from the beginning, the film completely immersed me. The film has a story that showcases the glory of Rome, and the film itself carries a similar glory unto its own. There is so much going on inside the screen that it is insane. Between the humungous cast, with who knows how many extras, the beautiful showcasing of wides, and the magnificent on location sets, “Gladiator” is pleasing to the naked eye. I understand that at the time, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” was kind of a big achievement in visual effects in terms of how deep they go with certain concepts, how real certain things looked for the time, but if I had to look back on both of these films now, I think “Gladiator” is the clear winner in terms of which is more attractive to the eye. I look back at “The Phantom Menace” and it sometimes looks like a video game. There have been worse looking effects, but still.

In fact, speaking of effects, there was one fight in particular that involves the use of tigers. It is easy to say because I am not the one making the film, but I kind of appreciated the film’s tendency to use real tigers. Now, I did question if the tigers were CGIed, which they partly were. They used bluescreen to make the tiger appear closer to the characters. That said, I admire how making “Gladiator” was probably about as dangerous as being a gladiator. I would have completely understood if this movie went down the full CGI route for the tigers, but the fact that they decided not to is a risk that paid off.

What also carries “Gladiator” are the performance. This is most notable with Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, an admirable protagonist. On the other hand, we have Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, an equally admirable antagonist. These two deliver two completely different vibes and mannerisms into their individual performances, but it does not change the fact that their work in this film are goldmines. Both of their deliveries are incredibly convincing. Even just their physicality, just having them stand around had me staring in awe.

But this film is much more than big fights and larger than life sets because I found myself immersed in the drama between the characters. Obviously there is the main story of Maximus trying to get his revenge, but in addition to that, I also found the family drama on Commodus’s side to quite compelling. Between how he gets his power, his relationship with his nephew, I found all of it intriguing. The film does a really good job at balancing various family, political, and personal dramas.

I will admit, having watched the film, there are parts of it that drag a little. It is not a huge dealbreaker, but in the scenes where people are talking, it is not necessarily that engaging. For the record, I can handle talking, I have no problem. But the scenes where people talk in this film are not as compelling as others, but there are select moments that positively stand out.

In fact, “Gladiator” as a film sort of reminds me, story-wise, of “Braveheart,” as it follows a someone trying to obtain their freedom, not to mention the freedom of others, within a backdrop of large sets and incredible violence. But much like “Braveheart,” as I watched the film, specifically the first 40, 45 minutes, I found myself getting bored and needing to pause the film to take a breather. For the record, I would contend that every minute of “Braveheart” is essential to the film. Much like how every minute of “Gladiator” is essential to it. But I would not deny that both films have pacing issues. Only difference, once I get past the first 45 minutes of “Braveheart,” the movie throttles heavily and gets good fast. “Gladiator” is very off and on with the pacing, but even in the slower moments, I still found myself the tiniest bit engaged. That said, having finished this film, this is one of those movies that if it were playing in a theater near me or if it got the IMAX treatment, I would go check it out. It looks like a magnificent theatrical experience. The cinematography is beautiful. The sets, again, are stunning. The sound editing and mixing are beyond powerful. Maybe if I watch this film in a theater, where I am less likely to be distracted, I would feel different than I do here. That said, the film is worth watching regardless and you absolutely should check it out if given the chance.

In the end, I get the hype for “Gladiator.” I had a good time with it. It is not my favorite of Ridley Scott’s films, and it is not even my favorite film of the early 2000s with huge sets and epic on location action. Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy started a year later. That said, it is one that if you asked me if I would watch it again, the answer would be an instant “yes.” I would probably put it on again at home, or again, if there were a chance to watch it in theaters, I would give it a chance. The cast is fantastic, the story is fascinating, and I must add that Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard’s score is mighty fine. I am going to give “Gladiator” an 8/10.

“Gladiator” is now available on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K Blu-ray. The film is also available on streaming and is free on Netflix for all subscribers as of this writing.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed my thoughts on “Gladiator” and want more Ridley Scott in your life, I have two more reviews coming in the Ridley Scottober series! One next week, followed by another the week after. Stay tuned. Also, be sure to check out my review for “The Last Duel,” Scott’s epic drama from 2021. 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 “Gladiator?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite sword and sandal movie? 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!

Bottoms (2023): A Rambunctious, Raunchy Comedy That is Too Cool for School

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Bottoms” is written and directed by Emma Seligman (Shiva Baby, Void) and stars her co-writer, Rachel Sennott (Bodies Bodies Bodies, Call Your Mother). Joining her in this cast are actors including Ayo Edebiri (Big Mouth, Up Next), Ruby Cruz (Mare of Easttown, Willow), Havana Rose Liu (No Exit, Mayday), Kaia Gerber (American Horror Stories, Babylon), Nicholas Galitzine (Cinderella, Chambers), Miles Fowler (Women of the Movement, The Resident), Dagmara Domińczyk (Succession, We Own This City), and Marshawn Lynch (80 for Brady, Westworld). This film is about two queer girls who start a fight club in their high school that they say is meant to empower women. Only thing, the duo started the club to potentially get lucky with cheerleaders.

The concept of this movie won me over as soon as I heard it. From the very beginning, “Bottoms” sounded like a bombastic, ridiculous good time. Little did I know what I was in for, because I went in expecting this film to be a fine mix of violent and naughty scenes, but this movie overdelivered on its premise because it does not feel like something that fits in our world. It feels like someplace much goofier, perhaps a little more fun than our world. If anything, “Bottoms” plays like a live-action episode of “Family Guy.” That is if “Family Guy” centered around two teenage girls. It is horny, fast, and over the top. Not once was I bored, and I was overwhelmed with the sense of immersion this movie gave me from scene one. I often think about some of my favorite movies like “Blade Runner” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” and when it comes to those films in particular, they emit a certain atmosphere from start to finish. I am not saying “Bottoms” is on the same level those two films, but the atmosphere of this film does a really good job at taking me from my world to the one inside the screen. “Bottoms” is not my favorite movie of the year. In fact, when it comes to this year in comedy, I still give a slight edge to “Joy Ride,” which deserved to do much better at the box office.

Having seen “Bottoms” in live-action, the movie works perfectly the way it is. But I think an argument can be made to justify setting this universe in an animated form. There are a lot of moments that feel cartoony, but yet they never take me out of the movie. Because the vibe is clearly established from the beginning. It goes for such a quick, almost blink you’ll miss it pace from scene one, and it never stops. The best live-action comparison that comes to mind is “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” Because the film’s dynamic stylization feels like a graphic novel come to life. Once the film kicks into gear, it is full of incredibly kinetic energy. “Bottoms” does not have the colorful stylization “Scott Pilgrim” has, but when it comes to dialogue, displayed mannerisms, and personality, this film reaches for the end zone. Plus there are moments of the movie that do not feel they would happen in our lives, but work super well for that world. One of the storylines of “Bottoms” involves the two leads getting into hot water over ruining an egotistical high school football player’s chances of being able to play. How so? By tapping his kneecaps with a car while his girlfriend sits in the backseat. The reaction on said football player’s part is equal to if I were ever so slightly gored by a bull. It completely jumps the shark, but I cannot help but embrace it. And while there are hints of realism in this scenario, the school takes this issue to a level that feels more important than, I do not know, making sure students barely pay attention in advanced algebra.

Say what you want about “high school drama.” This film does a good job at taking situations that may seem silly and miniscule, and making them come off as if they have significantly higher stakes. And as everything is going down, I am rooting for the two leads. Both of them are likable and are well played by their respective performers. Rachel Sennott and Ayo Edebiri are a perfect combo. Speaking of perfect combos, Havana Rose Liu and Kaia Gerber do a fantastic job as the cheerleaders who just so happen to be heavily desired by the two leads. I am as straight as they come, that said I can see why these two leads were attracted to these particular cheerleaders.

But when it comes to the high school in “Bottoms,” this place is in contention to be the single greatest on-screen school in cinematic history. Not because of their ability to educate. Actually kind of the opposite. It goes to show how little the movie takes itself seriously. Because not only are the students and staff, primarily those who we see on screen most of the time, charming as heck. But one of the reasons why “Bottoms” works so well as a comedy is because when it comes to establishing its high school, it is often riddled with things would often get a traditional high school either investigated or shut down. One of the best gags of the movie are the moments when the loudspeaker is being used, and it brings out moments where the principal asks the two leads to come see him, all the while referring to them as “gay and untalented.”

I mentioned this movie is horny. And I am not just talking about the teens. Of course they are horny. They are teenagers. What do you expect? But this movie has a teacher, MARVELOUSLY portrayed by Marshawn Lynch, a freaking football player, having a casual conversation with the leads all the while exposing a dirty magazine. The school football team all look like Ken dolls come to life. Speaking of horny, the school football team happens to be marketing themselves throughout the movie, encouraging supporters to “get horny” for them.

When I watch certain movies, I will sometimes say that there are things that do not add up or make sense within everything the film is trying to showcase on screen. In the case of “Bottoms,” the high level of absurdity of the film is played in its favor. The vibe of the film is clearly established from the beginning. It is almost like a drug. The film knows what it is. It refuses to take itself seriously, and it is all the better for it.

But just because “Bottoms” manages to be constantly naughty, does not mean it stays away from feeling sweet. I am not going to go into much detail as to what the sweet moments are, but there are one or two moments in the movie that allow me to breathe in a story that is presented at such a breakneck pace, and they provided a fine mix of innocence and grace. They were very well executed.

Comedy, like many other aspects of art, happens to be a completely subjective matter. When it comes to the comedy of “Bottoms,” I was laughing consistently. Between this film, “No Hard Feelings,” and “Joy Ride,” I am really glad we are starting to witness a comeback of great raunchy comedy in cinema. If we can get more films like these that are just as good, I will continue to check them out.

In the end, “Bottoms” is one of my top movies of the summer. Again, when it comes to pure laughter and humor, I think “Joy Ride” is slightly better. But “Bottoms” is a close second regarding comedy this year. I do not think we had a year in cinema this decent for comedy since 2018. Ever since COVID-19 started, I feel like pure, straight-up comedies have been missing from the movie market, which is kind of sad because after the start of a pandemic where everything is depressing and seemingly world-ending, you would want a good laugh every once in a while. These movies have all done that with excellence, with “Bottoms” being the latest example. The writing is on point, the casting is perfect, including Marshawn Lynch to my delightful surprise, and it is a rare film where I accept its unserious, goofy tendencies. Not once do they feel distracting. This is a movie that I would not mind watching again if given the chance, and I imagine it aging better with each viewing. I am going to give “Bottoms” an 8/10.

“Bottoms” is now playing in theaters. It is also available to buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “A Haunting in Venice,” “The Creator,” and “Dumb Money.” 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 “Bottoms?” As silly of a question as that sounds, I am being serious. Did you watch the movie “Bottoms?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie you admire that refuses to take itself seriously? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Meg 2: The Trench (2023): Shark Stank

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Meg 2: The Trench” is directed by Ben Wheatley (Rebecca, Free Fire) and stars Jason Statham (Furious 7, The Transporter), Wu Jing (Wolf Warrior, The Wanderers), Sophia Cai (Mr. Corman, Something Only We Know), Page Kennedy (S.W.A.T., Blue Mountain State), Segio Peris-Mencheta (Snowfall, Rambo: Last Blood), Skyler Samuels (Wizards of Waverly Place, Scream Queens), Sienna Guillory (Eragon, Resident Evil: Apocalypse), and Cliff Curtis (Avatar: The Way of Water, Fear the Walking Dead). This film is a sequel to the 2018 shark movie “The Meg” and once again centers around Jonas Taylor, who collaborates with a research team to uncover the many mysteries of a trench and the potential threats that lie within. The film is also inspired by the book “The Trench” by Steve Alten.

I got a good kick out of “The Meg” back when it came out five years ago. I did not think it reinvented shark movies, but when it comes to pure summer fun, that film was obscenely enjoyable. In fact, given how that film came out in the 2010s, the “Sharknado” franchise, which yes, are technically TV films, but still, were heavily on my mind at the time. I watched them, probably because deep down I must have liked torture. But I am kind of glad I watched the “Sharknado” films because when it comes to “The Meg,” they influenced my opinion towards the film. It feels like “The Meg” took the vibe from a “Sharknado” type of film, gave it a bigger budget, and added more pizzazz. I thought if they could keep that mentality going into the second movie, we could be in for yet another fine summer popcorn outing. I was looking forward to “Meg 2: The Trench.”

And just as I wanted, the marketing lived up to my expectations. It looked like it was going to be heavy on Jason Statham being awesome, marvelous visual spectacles, and shark action. It looked like colossal summer fun and I did not care if I ended up giving the film a barely passable score, because it did look like it would meet those terms, but it would have been one of the more memorable barely passable films I have come across if that were the case. Despite my barely passable score for the original “Meg,” I still think about it on a regular basis because I had a great experience watching it. And it actually managed to emit some shock for me in terms of its screenplay. While definitely not Shakespeare, I was pleasantly surprised as to where the movie would end up going.

When it comes to “The Meg,” that “Sharknado” comparison stands true today. Speaking of comparisons, I am happy to declare that “Meg 2: The Trench” makes “The Meg” look like “Jaws.”

Looking back, what must have tied “The Meg” together nicely is that it presents itself in a nice, solid pace. It is a pace that allows for crazy shark mayhem with some other moments to breathe in order to balance everything out. Sure, the first act is a tad dull at times, but the movie manages to work the more it builds. When it comes to “Meg 2: The Trench,” shark mayhem and moments to breathe also make their presence known, but when it comes to the faster paced shark scenes, I am not thinking about those as consistently as the moments that bored me. Maybe it is because I had, I am not going to say high, but moderate at best expectations going into this film. I really liked the first one, and even if this film barely scratches the surface of what the original delivered, it would still be a decent time. But it was not. This film is subtitled “The Trench,” but quite frankly, much of what involved the trench as the film went on made me tune out. It kind of made me sleepy. It made me fall into a trench of dreams.

And sticking with the topic of balance, when it comes to transitioning the horror aspect of “The Meg” from the franchise’s predecessor to this film, the results are not that great. The scares are cheap and uninteresting. The first film had a fine balance between action and scares. When it comes to the latter, it carries a significant absence this time around.

Despite my complaints about this movie, I will admit one positive consistency from the last film that is seen in this one happens to be the charm of Jason Statham. I am not going to pretend that Statham gives an Oscar-caliber performance or anything. In fact, in some ways, he seems to be playing a variation of himself. But when it comes to instant charm, he emits it throughout his entire time on screen. In fact, I like where they take his character when it comes to transitioning between the film’s events. Because we see he has become some sort celebrity figure because of his shark encounter. I like how the movie handles this aspect in particular.

I said “The Meg” is basically “Sharknado” if it were more down to earth and had a bigger budget. It is the kind of the thing that looks real and barely puts itself below a brain-melting threshold. “Meg 2: The Trench” honestly is what “Sharknado” would be if it were made for the big screen instead of Syfy. There are select moments in this film that jump the shark. Literally. And I am sometimes okay with an occasional whiffing away from reality every once in a while if the results are good. But in this case, they are not. There is one moment where one of the characters have to latch themselves onto a helicopter before they are executed by an explosion. By the time the explosion expands into the helicopter, part of me wonders how the fleeing individual even made it onboard. I could not believe my eyes. And that is ultimately what this movie is. A sight to behold. Except when it comes to the sights, they are not fun to look at. This film somehow looks worse than its predecessor. And that includes the trench, which I will remind you again, is in the title!

If anything, “Meg 2: The Trench” looks like an enhancement of our world, and I do not mean that in a good way. Everything in this film, and I kind of mean everything, looks too clean. All of it looks palatable, but yet it does not *feel* real. It kind of reminds me of what some people think of the “Star Wars” prequels. And unfortunately everything surrounding the shiny coat fail to make my time spent watching this film worthwhile. The screenplay and dialogue are extremely predictable at times. The supporting characters are beyond forgettable. And while this movie surprisingly has some halfway decent visual storytelling, it is also met with various scenes that did not offer any engagement. There is a lot of shark action by the end. But to be frank with you, I do not remember all of it, and to get to that shark action, you have to sit through the film equivalent of being tied to a chair with a gun to your head, and the only way you can survive is by fully reading through every word of a terms and services agreement. Between “Fast X” and now this garbage, Jason Statham is honestly not putting out his best work in 2023.

In the end, “Meg 2: The Trench” is a hot, watery mess. When it comes to shark movies, it is hard to know if we will ever see anything that surpasses “Jaws,” but with “Meg 2: The Trench,” today is not that day. If you want a halfway decent shark movie, “The Meg” is right there. Skip this one. Jason Statham is charming and there are some occasionally campy moments that can be considered fun, but they fail to match the joy of the first film. This film is dull, uninteresting, and by 2023 standards, the visual effects might not be up to par. Although that last part might be a little unfair because it is hard to match the look of “Avatar: The Way of Water.” I am going to give “Meg 2: The Trench” a 3/10.

“Meg 2: The Trench” is now playing in theaters. The film is also available to buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Bottoms” and “A Haunting in Venice!” This weekend, I also plan to watch “The Creator” and “Dumb Money,” so I will have even more posts in the pipeline! 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 “Meg 2: The Trench?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite of the two “Meg” installments? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Gran Turismo (2023): Proof That Video Games Are Not Always Bad For You

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Gran Turismo” is directed by Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Chappie) and stars David Harbour (Black Widow, Violent Night), Orlando Bloom (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring), Archie Madekwe (Heart of Stone, Midsommar), Darren Barnet (Love Hard, Never Have I Ever), Geri Halliwell Horner (Foggy Nation, Spice World), and Djimon Hounsou (Shazam!, Guardians of the Galaxy). This film shares its name with the well-known PlayStation-exclusive video game franchise, and centers around a group of people who organize and participate in a racing event dedicated to taking people who play “Gran Turismo” and putting them behind the wheel of real racecars. This is also based on true events.

Ever since I was a kid, I loved racing games. I grew up playing “Hot Wheels” titles on various consoles. I have racked up plenty of hours on “Mario Kart,” and “Need for Speed: Underground 2” remains one my favorite games of all time. Despite my love for the genre, I have never played “Gran Turismo.” That said, I was rather curious about this film from the getgo. Partially because we have been seeing in recent years that video game movies have been getting better, even if it is by the most minute of a difference. Recently we have had the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies, which have been decent. Despite its flaws, I had fun watching the recent “Mortal Kombat” reboot. Even with some departures from the games, that film delivered a gore factor the 1990s films did not provide. I also thought “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” while not the greatest definition of the word cinema, had glimmers of joy even if it relied on too many familiar beats. Both from a storytelling and nostalgia perspective.

The other reason why “Gran Turismo” excited me is because it was based on true events. This begs the question as to whether one should actually call this a video game-based movie, to which you can point in either direction. It is not a story based on the game itself, but it significantly uses the games to further the plot.

Speaking of the story, when it comes to “Gran Turismo,” the script is full of cliches and familiar beats. This can be a negative given the predictability factor of the film, but I sometimes say that having these beats are not always bad when you consider how they are used sometimes. If anything, “Gran Turismo” reminded me a bit of Pixar’s “Cars.” While they are not the same movie, they have similar protagonists in terms of their motivation, and both films tend to cruise down familiar roads. But the way both films do so allow for a well-executed narrative.

Speaking of cliches, one of them involves the protagonist trying to win over his love interest, and I honestly admire the way this movie goes about it. The main character is obviously on the younger side, and the way he admires his crush, at least for what we see, is through social media, specifically Instagram. I think the way this display is handled happens to be beautifully modern and kind of relatable. And by the time we get to the actual romance aspect of the film where we put two people in the same room, it is kind of cute. I like the main couple together. Archie Madekwe and Maeve Courtier-Lilley have solid chemistry.

If I have any core problems with the film, it is that it at times almost comes off as a commercial. Sure, we have seen movies in recent years that could double as commercials like “The LEGO Movie” and “Barbie,” but they did enough to make me feel like I was watching a good movie as opposed to something that was forcing me to buy something else. If the movie got me to buy a “Gran Turismo” game, that is not a problem. That is a sign that the movie is good enough to get me into the franchise. But at times, it almost serves more as a commercial for Nissan than a movie. When I was watching “Ford v Ferrari” several years ago, I did not think of it as a commercial for the Ford brand and instead I thought of it as a good story about accomplishing something monumental. Okay, well, I did buy a Ford in 2022, so… Who knows? Nevertheless, “Gran Turismo” serves as a fine story too, but I almost feel like it is trying to get me to buy a Nissan product every time the logo is shoved in my face.

Oh, and of course, this is a Sony movie, therefore Sony has plenty of product placement material for itself. In fact, there is a scene in this film that could have been all the more sentimental and charming if it were not in this movie, or if I did not know anything about product placement. There is a subplot in the film regarding the way David Harbour’s character, Jack Salter, listens to music. He uses an analog tape player, it kind of becomes a trademark for him at a point. There is a moment later in the film where Jann gives Jack a Walkman. I am all for promotion. But there comes a point where certain things cross the line. This is one of those times where the line is crossed. Thankfully though, the movie is still good enough to the point where the product placement does not bog everything down.

At its core, “Gran Turismo” is a classic underdog story. The protagonist, in this case Jann Mardenborough, wants to be a pro racer despite that idea coming off as a near impossibility. He has his doubters, including he people who recruit him to take on his dream, who are even doubted themselves for organizing their event in the first place. Just to be clear, other than mini golf, I have never gone golfing in my entire life. And let’s face it, just because I can hold my own in Wii Sports golf does not mean I will be joining the PGA anytime soon. But if there is one thing I love about the movie “Gran Turismo,” it shows that maybe video games do not rot the brain in a way that a lot of people suggest. Because the idea behind the program this movie revolves around is to take people who professionally play one of the most realistic racing simulators and put them in real racing machines. One thing I remember about being a kid is that I played a lot of NBA 2K. In conjunction with that, I would also shoot a lot of hoops on a court across the street from my house. Looking back, I feel that because I often did one of those things, I kept doing the other, and vice versa.

If I have to be real, I was never once bored with “Gran Turismo.” Even in moments where I felt like I was watching a film I probably could have come across years ago, I had a blast. When it comes to racing films, this is not the pinnacle of the concept, but it certainly drags miles ahead of what “Fast & Furious” has been doing lately. It is full of good performances across the board. David Harbour in particular shines as Jack Salter. The race scenes are often exciting and thrilling. By the end, I was rooting for Jann. I was hoping he would succeed. If “Gran Turismo” counts as a video game movie, I guess you can say it is one of the better video game movies out there.

In the end, “Gran Turismo” is one of the better films released over the summer. I think as far as the PlayStation-inspired films go, this is definitely a step up from “Uncharted.” If we keep getting some movies from PlayStation Productions that are on this level, or higher, they are heading in the right direction. That said, if this trend were to continue, I hope that we would get less of Sony’s product placement up the wazoo. That would have to be my biggest distraction in an otherwise solid movie. I am not entirely against product placement. Even some of the better Sony movies in recent years like “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” and even more recently, “Bullet Train,” feature Sony products in what could also be described as a commercialistic manner. But I don’t usually think about that when I think of those movies. Because those movies are good enough to the point where the product placement does not distract me, and even when it happens, it does not feel like it is in my face. I get it, money talks. But there is a drawing line. This is the same reason why I ended up hating “Space Jam: A New Legacy” a couple years back. I am going to give “Gran Turismo” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Meg 2: The Trench,” “Bottoms,” and “A Haunting in Venice.” 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 “Gran Turismo?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a way that video games have influenced your life? It can be positive or negative, either way works. Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Strays (2023): 2023’s Sausage Party, with Dogs

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Strays” is directed by Josh Greenbaum (Single Parents, Fresh Off the Boat) and stars Will Ferrell (Step Brothers, Barbie), Jamie Foxx (The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Ray), Isla Fisher (Keeping Up with the Joneses, Tag), Randall Park (Fresh Off the Boat, WandaVision), Brett Gelman (Fleabag, Stranger Things), and Will Forte (Scoob!, Saturday Night Live). This film is about a dog who is abandoned by his owner. After realizing what has happened to him, he aspires to get revenge.

I am the furthest thing from a dog person. Now, having just pissed off half of humanity and perhaps destroyed any chance of being in a committed relationship, I should have you know that I was looking forward to “Strays” ever since seeing the first trailer. This film looked hilarious, over the top, and filthy. I can go for all three of those things every once in awhile. In fact, this summer, we are starting to see a comeback of these three things, specifically when it comes to putting them all together in the same movie. “No Hard Feelings” delivered plenty of laughs and despite its taboo premise, ended up feeling as cute as it was naughty. “Joy Ride” is one of the funniest, most well-written comedies I have seen in a long time, and it is all the better given how far it takes itself in terms its dirty content, not to mention depth when it comes to story.

Next up on deck when it comes to this style of comedy, is “Strays.” The big difference here is that the film does not revolve around humans, and instead, personified dogs. So, is it delightfully naughty or insanely revolting?

The answer, somewhere in between.

Now, before we go any further, sometimes watching a movie with somebody else can define the experience. I am the kind of person that would be more than okay sitting next to my mom and watching “The Wolf of Wall Street.” That said, I went to “Strays” not only with my mom, but also my grandma. Needless to say, both individuals were okay with it. To my delightful surprise, both happened to enjoy the movie, but they appeared to be a bit surprised by how far it took certain things. As someone who appreciates dark humor, I was trying to my hold laughter back in certain scenes, especially with these two nearby.

My mom reads this blog, by the way. Hello!

That said, even in the darker, filthier moments, I came to the conclusion that this movie ultimately comes off as one big gimmick. Heck, there are tons of talking dogs on screen. It’s a gimmick of a gimmick! It’s gimmickception! With that being said, seeing a dog say “f*ck” one or two times can be funny. Heck, even a family-aimed movie like “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” contained some pretty foul language from a canine. That moment in particular was one of the better parts of the movie. But a movie like “Strays” can reveal why more does not always equal better. I admire when a movie is willing to push the boundaries with its comedy, especially when it may look innocent on the surface. But the funniest moments in “Strays” are not even the naughtiest ones. A lot of the funnier moments in the film range from random witty remarks to physical gags that would even fly in a tamer environment. There are also plenty of jokes that are specifically dog-related or are likely to be appreciated by dog lovers or owners. Those tended to work as well.

Although speaking of inside baseball when it comes to dogs, I am well aware that dogs tend to get scared during loud sounds such as fireworks. There is a scene in the film I thought was particularly well done involving fireworks. The reason why I found this scene compelling was because of how it was spliced together in the edit, and the way it uses sound. Because I have heard fireworks in person. I do not know why people even like them. I mean, sure, they are a spectacle, but they sound as if someone is constantly battering a drum right into your ear. I have always had sensitive ears, and I do not know how other people felt watching this movie, if they had the same experience I did. But this movie tends to use fireworks in a way to simulate a dog’s perspective of hearing them. I may not have a dog’s sense of hearing, but the fireworks scene in this film honestly took me back to when I was dragged by others to a fireworks show. Safe to say, I may have been more well behaved during certain dental procedures throughout my life.

Another highlight of the movie is the casting. Will Ferrell is incredibly good as Reggie. Picking Ferrell to play the lead role was a smart choice because not only has he proven to be good with voiceover through his roles in “The LEGO Movie” and “Megamind,” but he continues to have a knack for comedy. Sure, I thought he may have been the weakest part of “Barbie,” but if you watch last year’s holiday movie “Spirited,” now streaming on Apple TV+, he still has charm and wit like he has shown in various projects many years ago.

Also joining Ferrell is Jamie Foxx as Bug. I love these two dogs together. They are quite the odd duo. These two could not be further apart personality-wise, but their separation works for the story and execution brought to the table. If anything, their connection gave me a similar vibe to, speaking of Will Ferrell, his character’s connection to that of Mark Wahlberg’s in “Daddy’s Home.” As much as I did not enjoy that movie, the two had halfway decent chemistry at times.

“Strays” is a blend between “The Secret Life of Pets” and “Sausage Party.” It is a film featuring talking animals, in this case dogs, where they all blend together, act as one big ensemble, and do anything to stand by each other. But much like “Sausage Party,” the film takes a concept that has primarily been aimed at families over the years, specifically stories revolving around dogs, and flips it on its head with a perverted twist. The idea of a dog wanting to bite its owner’s junk may work in a family movie as a blink you’ll miss it moment, but not as an extended motivation for the protagonist. The way Reggie’s motivation is built up works perfectly and it makes sense once it is first exposed. As a start to finish narrative, “Strays” is finely tuned.

Although when it comes to being a comedy, “Strays” is a complicated balancing act. There are a lot of moments in the movie that had me dying of laughter, but then there are plenty of moments that had me silent. While I have respect for how far the movie goes with its content, its extremes on both ends make me hesitate to give this movie my recommendation. This is far from the funniest comedy of the year. In fact, as much as I love dark humor, there might have been one or two moments that I honestly wish I had not seen. Maybe the movie was trying to be gross to come off as funny, but it solely came off as gross as far as I am concerned. When it comes to gross humor this year, “Joy Ride” may be the clear winner right now. But that’s just me.

In the end, “Strays” is… fine. I admit, when the first teaser came out, I did have high expectations. But I was kind of disappointed with this movie. It was not as funny as I wanted it to be. The filthier moments were honestly not as appealing as I would have expected them to be. And as the movie went on, this felt like one giant gimmick that played out for an hour and a half. I compared this movie to “Sausage Party,” which some people may understandably call a gimmick as well. But I think that movie was a lot funnier, had a more satisfyingly twisted concept, and had an incredible narrative that came off as layered. But I should also note, I was 16 when I watched “Sausage Party.” I was less mature and did not know as much about movies at the time. As I watched movies and comedies over the years, I continue to feel like I have nearly seen it all. I have not witnessed many examples of perverted dog movies, but I just wish I could have seen one that made me leave feeling I witnessed something better. That said, the movie is still on the positive end of the spectrum, so I am going to give “Strays” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Gran Turismo,” “Meg 2: The Trench,” and “Bottoms.” 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 “Strays?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite R-rated comedy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!