Comedy

Y2K (2024): A Group of Teens Celebrate a Crappy New Year in This Rad Horror Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Y2K” is directed by Kyle Mooney and this is his directorial debut. The film stars Jaeden Martell (St. Vincent, It), Rachel Zegler (West Side Story, Shazam! Fury of the Gods), Julian Dennison (Deadpool 2, Godzilla vs. Kong), Lachlan Watson (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Chucky), Mason Gooding (Love, Victor, Scream), Fred Durst (The Education of Charlie Banks, The Fanatic), and Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman & Robin). This film follows two teenagers who crash a New Years Eve party as the clock gets closer to 2000. When the clock hits midnight, the group of partiers must survive against an army of machines.

While it is not my top film I have been looking forward to all year, “Y2K” is a project that has been on my radar ever since the trailer dropped. The film looked like a crazy good time that answers a question that I have to imagine some people have asked over the past 24 years. What if Y2K actually happened?

This is not the first time Y2K has been played out through a form of entertainment. There is a great “Family Guy” episode that came out around the time said event was on the verge of potentially occurring. It is a funny watch, I highly recommend it. “Y2K,” interesting enough, sometimes plays out like a “Family Guy” episode. There is a lot of throwback humor. There are also a couple sights that might make certain audience members wince. The characters, while well thought out and decently portrayed, are somewhat stereotypical. You have Jaeden Martell playing Eli, a well meaning guy who does not really happen to be that popular. You have his quirky, hyperactive best friend, Danny, played by Julian Dennison. Rachel Zegler plays Laura, a character that fits somewhere within the “popular girl” stereotype. And because this is a movie and we need our hero to want something, we come to know that the unpopular kid, Eli, ends up with the desire to kiss the more popular Laura, particularly during the first moments of the year 2000. And adding a similarity to another Seth MacFarlane project, kind of like the 2012 movie “Ted,” there is a celebrity who appears in the film as themself and they play a bit of a bigger role in the film than a simple cameo.

There are three main elements of “Y2K” that make it worth the price admission for me. I ended up seeing this film at a free screening, so maybe that is not the best phrase to use. But if I were to pay to see this in a theater again, I have a few factors as to why. First off, going back to the actors, they all do a good job with the material given to them. Each character is full of energy to the point where they almost leap off the screen. I especially adored the connection between Jaeden Martell and Rachel Zegler. For the most part, they are believable. There is a bit of an out of the blue turn between them that almost comes off as forced, but I can forgive it somewhat because the two characters are likable and I was nevertheless engaged even in lesser moments between them. Of all the characters in the film, Jaeden Martell is the center of the story, so we get to see him crushing on Zegler for a good amount of the runtime. I thought the film did a great job at displaying that. It felt like something I would have experienced in say middle school or high school. Something so fantastical, yet it is real, but also seemingly hard to act upon. I have a feeling this connection would evoke a sense of nostalgia for some people watching this at a later age.

Speaking of which, this movie tends to handle its 90s nostalgia and timeframe fairly well. The movie delivers a decent soundtrack. There are a lot of good songs in the film that match their specific scenes. The movie starts off doing its best impression of “Searching,” where our point of view is presented through a screen on a computer. As that is going on, there is a moment where dial-up Internet can be heard in the background, and we are seeing a conversation play out in AOL. We also get some moments in a video store. The nostalgia in this film is definitely played up, but it appears to work within the context of the story.

The film is also a horror comedy, and while the film is not the scariest of all time, it contains some good kills, some of which are very funny. Seeing various pieces of technology in this film become completely unhinged is a definite highlight for me. “Y2K” is probably not going to be a movie for everyone, but if you are someone who likes creative attacks and kills, you might be entertained.

Despite containing a lot of positives, “Y2K” is not going to win any Oscars. The film works and is structurally sound, but there is not a ton in it that changes the game. I say this despite also feeling that “Y2K” has given me some of the biggest laughs I had at the cinema this year. I do recommend watching this movie with a crowd. I think it is a great one to see with friends. It would make for a fun night out. If anything, it is a solid first directorial outing from Kyle Mooney, a former “Saturday Night Live” cast member. This film shows he has potential as a filmmaker, and his best work has probably yet to come. But for a first time film, it seems to work. When you have first time directors in recent years firing on all cylinders like Ari Aster with “Hereditary” or Greta Gerwig with “Lady Bird,” it is easy to forget that not all first films have the potential to end up being that director’s best in the long run. When I see debuts like these two, I automatically get excited for the director’s next movie because I think their first film is not just good, but one of the best of the year in which it came out. Therefore, that introduces a problem of recency bias. They say when you do something so lackluster or outright terrible, the only way to go is up. Kyle Mooney’s “Y2K” is definitely far from terrible, but just like something terrible, Mooney has the potential to step things up in his sophomore effort, and I look forward to seeing if he can do that should he continue his directorial career.

In the end, “Y2K” is a mighty fine film. Some would even say it is the bomb. “Y2K” is a film that I would watch a second time if given the opportunity. It is really funny, violent, and contains a likable cast. I am glad to see Rachel Zegler continuing to get more roles. Her cinematic resume is small, but she is one of this generation’s youngest and brightest talents. I loved her in “West Side Story.” I am not really a “Hunger Games” guy so I do not know how she is in “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” but I still think she is a great performer. She can sing. She can act. She can do it all. Hopefully she has a strong career going forward. While Kyle Mooney’s debut as a director is not perfect, “Y2K” carries its own sense of style. I think Mooney could have a future directing more movies. As far as this first movie goes, I had a great time. I am going to give “Y2K” a 7/10.

“Y2K” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” “Smile 2,” and “Nightbitch.” 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 “Y2K?” What did you think about it? Or, if you lived during the transition from 1999 to 2000? What was that time like for you? For me, I was not even two months old so I could not tell you. But for those who do remember that time more vividly, leave your comments down below! Or, if you were born in 2000 or later, what is something associated with the 1990s you enjoy? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

A Real Pain (2024): This Short Road Film is a Real Thinker, and a Real Mover

Posted on by Jack Drees

“A Real Pain” is written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg (Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, The Social Network) who also stars in the film as David. Alongside him is Kieran Culkin (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Succession) as his cousin, Benji. Also in the film are stars including Will Sharpe (The Electrical Life of Louis Wain, The White Lotus), Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Kurt Egyiawan (The Exorcist, Skyfall), Liza Sadovy (A Small Light, EastEnders), and Daniel Oreskes (Law & Order: Organized Crime, Only Murders in the Building). This film is about two cousins who take a trip to Poland to see various spots throughout the country, in addition to their late grandmother’s house.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

I saw the teaser trailer for “A Real Pain” a few times in the theater, and it piqued my curiosity. I know there is a longer trailer out for the film, but for whatever reason I never got around to watching it before the film released. But the teaser had a brisk pace, gave promising chemistry between two leads, and some quickly delivered dialogue back and forth. It was by no means my most anticipated movie of the year, but it was one that if I got the chance to watch it, I would take it. Thankfully, a friend and I got to watch it over its opening weekend.

This movie has a 90 minute runtime, but it delivers a lot of material despite being a short watch. Again, I watched the teaser trailer, so I know it involved two people visiting land far from home, but I did not exactly know the movie’s true premise. Because I watched the teaser, which set the tone for the film, gave a glimpse of some of the scenes, some of the characters. But it left me with the impression that this was going to be a buddy travel flick between two people. Maybe even with a heist element considering the first shot of the teaser shows our main duo hopping train cars.

As for that last part, I was way off. “A Real Pain” is not a heist movie. I am not saying I am disappointed, it is just not what I expected. It is, however, as I correctly predicted, a buddy travel flick. And like some other movies involving long trips, it is between a couple people who have varying personalities, lifestyle situations, and habits.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

You have the more accomplished David (Jesse Eisenberg) who has a wife, has a family, has a career, and lives in New York City. He is paired up with his cousin Benji (Kieran Culkin), who we come to realize has a way of easily charming strangers. But he also has a lot of quirks, some of which certain people would find annoying. I like the diversification of these two and both actors play off each other well.

I have no idea how most audiences are going to see Culkin’s character through their personal tastes. Whether they end up liking him, thinking he is too much, or if he is a nuisance. He can be a bit much. But there is no denying that he is raw. Yes, Benji may come off as a manchild who refuses to leave the nest, but there is more to his life than meets the eye. It is not my favorite performance of the year, but it could be one worthy of some awards contention. It is easily the standout performance of the film and that says something because Eisenberg holds his own as David.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

The film features the two leads on vacation in Poland, but I would not call their adventure an escape. The two cousins, who are Jewish by the way, are there to see various Holocaust-related sites along with the home of their late grandmother. For the record, I am not Jewish, but even as someone who is not Jewish, I have to imagine seeing certain places that these people end up visiting can elicit a number of negative emotions. To think about what these places stood for, what people did in said places, it shows the dark side of humanity and leaves one to wonder how we got to where we are now. Around the midway point of the film, our characters end up visiting a concentration camp used during the Holocaust. They get a tour of the site, including the inside of a gas chamber. When we get to this point of the film, there is no music, minimal sound, nothing more than occasional dialogue. I sometimes talk about immersion on Scene Before, but that word is typically used in relation to something spectacular or hyperactive like a big battle sequence or a race between cars. This movie immersed me through its minimalistic tendencies. The movie was literally as empty as I felt watching it. I almost did not know what to say or think other than, “Why?”

There are a couple movies that come to mind if I were to compare “A Real Pain” to something else. Specifically, “Jojo Rabbit” and “Life is Beautiful.” Not only do the films deal with the events of World War II and the Holocaust in some capacity, but both films, perhaps by the miracle of a god, manage to find humor in the darkest of situations. All of the humor feels natural. You could even argue it is cathartic. It is an escape from the harsh reality people had to deal with. Sort of in the same way some see music or books. Heck, I sort of view movies in the same light. It is an escape from reality. This movie, like many others, let me leave my world for a little more than an hour. But it simultaneously does a great job at showcasing the wrongs of someone else’s.

Keeping the title of this movie in mind, “A Real Pain,” that is something this movie highlights in a variety of ways. Some people deal with pain by crying, others reflect, others pray. As far as Benji goes, he is a complicated individual who tends to hide whatever pain he is holding back for a period of time until he suddenly breaks. We see David kind of go down a similar path, but he seems to do a better job at keeping his emotions in check. We sometimes find out the effects the cousins come to discover as a result of their grandmother’s death. “A Real Pain” is a film that deals with the universal concept of grief. It also deals with the complication of life after a great suffering. There is a moment during the train ride where Benji questions whether it is right for him and others onboard to be sitting inside a high quality vehicle in first class. He questions whether something like this is justified after many people several decades ago dealt with one of the worst events in all of history. I cannot pretend “A Real Pain” is perfect. I think some people will end up finding Benji to be a little hard to handle at times, and there are a couple scenes that despite his character feeling real, I thought he was written to be a tad over the top. But “A Real Pain” delivers on a lot of things a great story can do. It makes you laugh. It makes you cry. It makes you sympathize with different characters. This is not my favorite film of the year, but I will not deny it nails a lot of things on the head.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

In the end, “A Real Pain” is a real deal. With the help of a great cast and a singular vision from Jesse Eisenberg, the film manages to find light in darkness. I cannot recommend the film to everyone, but even if you are an easy person to make cry during movies, I think there will be a fair amount of joy and laughs to balance that out. I have no idea what Jesse Eisenberg has up his sleeve next behind the camera, but if it is as good as this, I will be happy. I am going to give “A Real Pain” an 8/10.

“A Real Pain” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 2.” If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “A Real Pain?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you think perfectly balances light and darkness? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Red One (2024): A Holiday Movie for Everyone, and Therefore, No One

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Red One” is directed by Jake Kasdan (Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Sex Tape) and stars Dwayne Johnson (Central Intelligence, Moana), Chris Evans (Captain America: The First Avenger, Knives Out), Lucy Liu (Charlie’s Angels, Strange World), and J.K. Simmons. This film showcases what happens when Santa’s bodyguard (Johnson) and a hacker (Evans) team up to find and rescue Saint Nick himself after he has been kidnapped.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

There are two words that define “Red One” for me. And no, they are not “red” or “one.” The two words that have consistently stayed in my head regarding “Red One” just so happen to be “it’s fine.” It is that middle of the road utterance you give to someone when you are trying not to hurt their feelings, but you also do not want to overblow your emotions and put on a performance. What did I think of the first “Red One” trailer? Eh, it’s fine. What did I think of the second trailer? I mean, it’s fine I guess. Looks fun enough. I was entertained by both of them. They both made me curious about the film. But I am not going to pretend it boosted my excitement in the same way that Marvel’s “Thunderbolts*” did, which took me from a concept I felt rather indifferent about, to immediately demanding at least five or so minutes of more footage.

I will be real, if you were to measure my excitement for “Red One,” it would be somewhere in the middle. I cannot pretend I have massive expectations for this film, but there are promising elements to behold. I liked the whole spy action vibe the film was promising, where the objective for our two recognizable leads is to rescue Santa Claus. “Violent Night” recently showed you can make a cool modern action flick with a Christmas backdrop, so maybe “Red One” would result in something similar.

Not to beat a dead horse… But “Red One” is, well, what other description can I possibly give?! It’s fine! If they come out with a DVD for this film, please note how I said if, not when, because this movie is an Amazon production. But if they come out with a DVD for “Red One,” you might as well take the two words I just said, “It’s fine,” and put that quote on the bottom of the cover. I bet that will make a great addition to the Walmart $5 bin. Do those bins even exist anymore? Asking for a friend.

I have heard this comparison before, but I think there is almost no better way to pitch this film to someone. “Red One” is practically a movie within a movie. It is a movie that you would make that purely exists within the universe of another film, or even say a TV show. This is the kind of movie that would exist in an episode of “The Big Bang Theory,” Penny would have to pitch the concept to her friends after she reads the script only to pause for audience laughter. The concept sounds goofy enough, but putting actors as notable as Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans in the lead roles? It is a perfect recipe for a two minute gag in a coming of age comedy. But this movie is not two minutes. It is more than two hours. And it packs quite a bit into the runtime. Some of it lands, some of it does not. But it is hard for me to say that there was a lot in the movie that gave me a particularly strong reaction. Not much made me overly irate. Not much made me giddy with glee. That said, there are things that stood out to me about the film.

One positive I have about the film is how much lore they put into the mythology of Christmas, the North Pole, Santa Claus, or even other mysterious beings. The film undoubtedly puts a creative twist on handling what we tend to know as mythology.

That said, this film’s interpretation of the North Pole is both creative and underwhelming at the same time. For my “Star Wars” fans out there, it is basically the midichlorians of North Pole interpretations. When I think of the North Pole based on how I imagined it as a kid and what I have seen through media, I have always interpreted it as this whimsy, magical place. But a couple of the first things I notice when we get to the North Pole are a semi-depressing color scheme and drones flying. Sure, maybe drones can be magical… But when I look at the drones they have no poppy color to them, no pizzazz, and they honestly look like something you’d find in a store. The North Pole does not look as fun or magical as other interpretations. If anything it looks kind of bland. I get that the movie is a spy action thriller, and I like parts of what they are going for. But the North Pole is not one of them.

I also want to note something to families looking to see this film. I will not spoil anything considering the movie is new, but the movie opens with some material I think certain children should not be seeing. Also, this scene does set up the rest of the film, but I also think that scene would have been a better set up to a different story. For the record, the scene features a younger version of Chris Evans’ character, Jack O’Malley, and shows him doing something he probably should not be doing. We see this develop into something else in the long term, but I would love to see how this would have paid off in a shorter term. Perhaps hours, days, or even a year after Jack commits to his actions. Again, I will not go into detail. I think it would have spiraled into a movie that would have been much more fun than the one we got.

The holiday season is full of new films with great performances, many of which get nominated for Oscars, Critics Choice Awards, SAGs, and so on. “Red One” is not one of those movies. In fact it is not even close. Yes, there are competent performances on the supporting end. There is nothing totally anger-inducing, yet there is also not really much to write home about. With that in mind, if you were to ask me what I want for Christmas this year? It would for this movie to have two significantly better lead performances.

I am not going to pretend that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is the greatest actor of all time. Though I would not doubt his charisma gets him by from one movie to the next. That said, after several outings, he almost seems to do the same song and dance every other time. Yeah, maybe the “Jumanji” movies showcase his skills sometimes because he has to play other people simulating him. But when I look at movies like “Skyscraper,” “Rampage,” “Red Notice,” or this latest one, he seems to be playing some variation of himself. In some of these movies, even if he does not give an Oscar-worthy performance, he at least has a positive presence. The same can be said for “Red One” in certain scenes. I liked all the scenes between Johnson’s character, Callum Drift, and Santa Claus, played nicely by J.K. Simmons. But for various portions of the film, Johnson came off as if he was just playing the hits, but giving a tired version of them. The performance is not that inviting. It feels been there, done that. Does Johnson look like he wants to be on set? The way the movie is presented certainly makes him look that way. But I am willing to bet whenever he smiled on screen, that smile came with the knowledge that he would soon be getting a good chunk of the movie’s $250 million dollar budget.

Yeah… There is no way this movie cost $250 million. There are definitely a lot of special effects and things going on in each frame, but there is no way this is movie cost as much to make as “The Dark Knight Rises…”

Speaking of people who probably got paid a crapton of money for their presence in the film, let’s talk about Chris Evans! I love Chris Evans. Of course I have enjoyed watching him as Captain America, but even in movies I did not enjoy, I still think Evans ends up being a highlight. Personally, he was the best part of that forgettable Netflix movie, “The Gray Man.” But as far as Evans goes, his performance belongs on the naughty list. Though I would not entirely blame Chris Evans. While he may appear to be sleepwalking in the film from time to time, the script does him almost no favors. His character is about as one-dimensional as a ragdoll in “G-Mod.” Every other moment with Evans is just him acting bewildered or mind-blown. He is clearly playing the fish out of water role, but such a trait brings nothing interesting to the table as far as this project is concerned. Other than trying to get what he wants when he wants it, being a lame fish out of water might as well be Jack’s entire personality. Well, those aspects in addition to perving out on Wonder Woman.

Courtesy of Prime – © Amazon Content Services LLC

As for the action in this film, I am surprised to say that there are some standout scenes. There are a couple minutes inside of Jack O’Malley’s apartment where he fends off tons of people at once. I thought the choreography in that scene was really good. There is a creative moment in the film involving Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots. While I thought the scene itself was average, I did like one confrontation between Jack O’Malley and a giant snowman that turns its head like a Terminator when placed on a burning grill. But I cannot pretend I was that riveted by any of the action scenes. If anything I was amused by them, but to say I was wowed would be a hyperbole.

This is not necessarily an action scene as much as it is a face off, but there is a fantastic scene where our heroes come face to face with Krampus. There is a perfectly paced few minutes where Krampus and one of the characters are going one on one in the creature’s own game. It is quite entertaining. Sadly, I cannot say most of the movie is just as thrilling. By the way, for a movie full of visuals that would make you think it is a forgotten project from the late 2000s, early 2010s, I have to say the look for Krampus is a great display of practical effects. He looks great!

Theoretically, “Red One” is a movie that seems to be made to entertain or satisfy just about every person who would see it. But that is also where the film has a drawback. It tries to be dozens of things at once to the point where it does not really seem to know who exactly it is for. Is it for action junkies? Is it for people who like Christmas movies? Is it for people who like “The Rock?” Is it for people looking for a bit of a family dynamic? Will teens like it? Does it have enough for the kiddos? The movie throws a bunch of things at the wall. Some may stick, but not like superglue. Sure, “Red One” has action, but it is not the most innovative or exciting of the year. Yes, this movie has a Christmas backdrop, but lacks a sense of spirit or magic. Of course, “The Rock” is in the movie, but I would say he has had better performances and scripts to work with. There is a family dynamic but it almost lingers in the background. Certain teens would probably get behind some of the spectacle-based scenes but to call this movie the most spectacular-looking of the year when “Dune: Part Two” and “Twisters” exist would be generous. Kids could also be entertained by the adventure, but there are some things in this film that I imagine their parents would not want them to see.

When you break it down, “Red One” tries to be for everybody, but embraces its elements so minimally or poorly to the point where the movie is arguably for nobody. If you want to watch a movie from this year that so brilliantly speaks to several demographics, one that comes to mind would probably be “The Fall Guy.” For those looking for holiday cheer, you might be disappointed. Maybe some younger viewers should stay away from the film too. But for those looking for ludicrous action, charismatic stars, great music, an engaging love story, and a fun adventure, it is one of the year’s best flicks. I cannot say “Red One” is the movie equivalent to a lump of coal, but watching the movie at times sort of feels similar to going into my stocking on Christmas morning and finding a toothbrush. It works, but it might not exactly be what I am looking for.

In the end, “Red One” is as the kids say, mid. It is not great, not terrible. Just okay. Do I feel like my time was wasted watching “Red One?” Probably not. Will I watch it again in the future? Also probably not. But “Red One” is not worthy of the same applause that certain Christmas classics continue to get today. Movies like “Home Alone” or “Elf” or if you want to talk about something from this decade, I would say “Red One” does not even hold a candle to “The Holdovers.” If you are having company over during the holidays and need background noise on the television, “Red One” is somewhat serviceable. But you could also do a lot better. I am going to give “Red One” a 5/10.

“Red One” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

© 2024 SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” “Wicked,” and “Smile 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 “Red One?” What did you think about it? Or, are there any Christmas movies you watch once a year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Elvis & Nixon (2016): Presley Meets the President in This Fun Amazon Studios Film

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the final entry to the Election Days review series! Every year I make an effort to do a weekly series of older releases. This year has been tough to fit one in due to work, travel, life, and so on. But I figured what better time to do a series like this one than during an Election Year in the United States. If you have not read my other reviews in the series so far, be sure to check out my thoughts on “The Campaign,” “W.,” and “On the Basis of Sex.” This week’s review is going to be for the film “Elvis & Nixon.” I have definitely heard of the film before taking on this review series. It came out in 2016, back when Scene Before started. It is one of the earliest films from Amazon Studios, which has now become Amazon MGM Studios. But for whatever reason, I never bothered to check it out. That said, I watched the trailer, I thought looked good, so I thought I would give it a shot. Here are my thoughts on the movie.

“Elvis & Nixon” is directed by Liza Johnson (Dead to Me, Silicon Valley) and stars Michael Shannon (99 Homes, Revolutionary Road), Kevin Spacey (Horrible Bosses, House of Cards), Alex Pettyfer (Endless Love, Magic Mike), Johnny Knoxville (Bad Grandpa, Jackass), Colin Hanks (Orange County, King Kong), Evan Peters (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Invasion), Sky Ferreira (Putty Hill, The Green Inferno), Tracy Letts (Wiener-Dog, Homeland), Tate Donovan (Hercules, Damages), and Ashley Benson (Days of Our Lives, Pretty Little Liars). This film is based on true events and is about a meeting between famed musician Elvis Presley and U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1970, an event that spawned the most requested photograph in the history of the National Archives.

The past couple years have given us some exposure to Elvis Presley on the big screen. Whether it is through “Elvis” in 2022, which I did not enjoy. Or “Priscilla” in 2023, which I thought was one of the best movies of that year. These two films are deep dives into of each of the titular individuals’ lives, but “Elvis & Nixon,” which came out years before both of those films, is a little different. This film specifically focuses on one point in time during Presley’s life, not to mention Richard Nixon’s life. It never strays away from its key event. There are no concert scenes. There’s not much of Elvis’s discography playing in the background. It picks a place in time and refuses to stray away from it. This leads me to some compliments regarding the film. It flies by. Not only because it has a short runtime, but so much fun is packed into said runtime. This film is based on truth, but even with that in mind, it does not mean it is a serious story. Sure, Elvis Presley appears to be motivated to tackle issues he finds to be serious, but the story itself is kind of light. It is literally about two people meeting. Of course, there is other stuff in between, but that is basically the gist.

That said, this also highlights a problem in the film. The film packs a decent amount of material in its short runtime, but I cannot say I was invested in all of it. Some of the threads in the story come off as a bit of an afterthought. It is not that they are boring or do not make sense. But they clearly play second fiddle to the main story. Though to be fair, it would probably be worse if the main story felt like the afterthought. That said, I do wish I were a little more invested in everything else surrounding the nucleus of the plot.

All the actors play their parts well, and despite him being a controversial name now, I even include Kevin Spacey as Richard Nixon in this sentiment. I thought of all the characters in the movie, Spacey’s take on Nixon may have been the biggest standout. He has a commanding voice and admirable presence. He brings a distinctive aura to every scene he is in. His performance definitely fits under a term that I have used previously in the Election Days series, Hollywoodized. There are definitely some exaggerative qualities to it on screen. But it does not change the fact that those qualities fit his character well.

As for Elvis Presley, I thought he was competently played by Michael Shannon. I think he does a good job with his material. Academy Award-worthy? Perhaps not. But he does a good job. While Shannon definitely evokes Presley’s often advertised charisma, I thought he was tamer than I would have expected. Granted, it is fair to say the tale behind this film itself is calm. There is a little more conversation, a little less action, so to speak.

Perhaps my favorite element of “Elvis & Nixon” has to do with Presley’s perspective upon entering the White House. We see the process to get Presley into the building and meet the President is rather complicated, as I imagine it would be for just about anyone else, I have not been to the White House to do such a thing myself. I have never even been to Washington, D.C. period. Crazily enough, I cannot say I ever really imagined what it would be like to meet a sitting U.S. President. But as I watched this movie, it clicked with me. Doing such a thing has to be one of the grandest of privileges. That is the feeling that this movie tends to project while it is set in the White House.

And on that note, perspective is something I think is not just nailed from the view of Presley, but also his fans. This movie has a scene where Elvis enters a room full of women and just about every one of them, whether they choose to display it excessively or not, lose their mind. In fact, we see men doing it too. The only person who we find not to be on the same page with all these people is President Nixon.

This movie has a beginning, middle, and end, like a lot of others do. This movie has a point a to b progression, like a lot of others do. But not every movie can do what “Elvis & Nixon” does because to some degree, it turns nothing into something. If this movie were not based on actual events, that is a description that would immediately come to mind for a movie like this. Again, one of the top goals as far as Nixon’s administration is concerned is to get a picture of the two titular characters, and even something as simple as that becomes complicated.

As someone who did not live in the time of Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon’s peaks in relevancy, I nevertheless can say I was fascinated by what this movie was trying to deliver. That said, I think people who lived during this time will appreciate this movie most because it does a good job at highlighting the prominence of both figures and establishing how mind-blowing it is that these two incredibly famous men ended up crossing paths. But even I, who was born towards the end of the 20th century, recognize the moment this meeting has on our culture. That said, I did not know that the photo behind this film is the most requested in the history of the National Archives. I am not sure how many history classes cover Elvis and Nixon meeting. It is definitely a notable moment in pop culture, but there is a reason why I did not learn about it in school. But this movie, unlike some others based on true events, feels less like a history lesson and more like a fun escape. I laughed quite a few times in this film, there are quite a few gags that are finely executed. If you are looking for something to watch, this movie will do the trick. Is it a masterpiece? No. But it is definitely a solid hour and a half.

In the end, “Elvis & Nixon” definitely has fun putting two notable people of their time in the same room, and results in a movie worth watching at least once. The subplot elements are almost distracting and feel like they are just there to fill an already short runtime, but I would issue a thumbs up to what we got in those 86 minutes including credits. I had a great time watching the movie. Overall, it is light and fluffy, but it does not mean it is not entertaining. The film is not Shakespeare, but definitely a fine time waster. I am going to give “Elvis & Nixon” a 7/10.

“Elvis & Nixon” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on Prime Video for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! I hope you all enjoyed this Election Days series! I have no idea what my next weekly series is going to be, but I do have a few in mind. If I think it is time to do another one, I will share it with you all. Until then, look forward to my reviews for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Elvis & Nixon?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite movie associated with Elvis Presley? It can be one where someone plays him, maybe there is a good use of his discography, or one he has been in himself. Personally, I thought “Blade Runner 2049” had a couple memorable, albeit brief, moments featuring the musician through a hologram. Let me know your picks down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Anora (2024): A Truly Rad Concept That Fully Embraces Its Chaotic Nature

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Anora” is written and directed by Sean Baker (Red Rocket, The Florida Project) and stars Mikey Madison (Better Things, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), Mark Eydelshteyn (The Land of Sasha, Pravednik), Yura Borisov (AK-47, Guest from the Future), Karren Karagulian (Red Rocket, The Florida Project), Vache Tovmasyan (Lost & Found in Armenia, Golden School), and Aleksei Serebryakov (Nobody, McMafia). This film follows the relationship between an exotic dancer and the son of an oligarch. Once the son’s parents find out the two have married, they do what they can to declare it invalid.

We are reaching the end of the year, which as far I am concerned, means it is crunch time. There are so many movies coming out that I would like to see, or in cases like “Wicked,” kind of have to see to stay in the conversation. I have so many movies on my radar to the point where I do not know if I have the ability to watch all of them. I have several reviews on the to-do list, including this one. Of the films that are on the lineup, “Anora” is an utmost priority. The biggest reason is because the film won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Of the last five films that won the Palme d’Or, three were Best Picture nominees at the Oscars, and Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite” ended up winning the Academy’s coveted title for the year it was nominated. Additionally, I also glimpsed at one of the trailers for the movie and it was one of my favorite trailers I have seen this year. It promised a compelling story with an individualistic flair about two characters who I ultimately looked forward to seeing on screen.

But I was not prepared for what kind of movie this was going to be. I had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be good. I also had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be unique. I had a suspicion that “Anora” was going to be an experiential event. But even as the movie unfolded, I was marveled by whatever the heck it was I was seeing. This movie has a pace to it that really should not work, but for whatever reason it does. There is a key scene in the second act that drags itself out so heavily and takes its time, but never once does a single moment of it feel wasted. Why? Because it contains characters that I care about, and even if some of them are not exactly role models, I am nevertheless in a trance as I find out what their next move is going to be.

The stars of this movie are Mikey Madison and Mark Eydelshteyn and whereas you might look at a lot of other movies and find couples to be matches made in Heaven, I’d argue these two are a match made in Hell. I do not mean that as a negative. If anything, these two have some of the best chemistry in an on-screen couple I have come across in recent memory. But as people, these two are not perfect, arguably on purpose. You have Ani (Madison), who works as a stripper in a club, and Vanya (Eydelshteyn), who stays at home playing video games all day. Granted, he and his family can afford it, so it could be worse. But he is a bit of a spoiled brat. But both actors play these imperfect people to a tee and watching them together is exciting. Every moment they are on screen together, I bought into their connection. Sometimes certain absurdities come up between them, but the movie maintains an atmosphere that makes you buy into said absurdities. Individually, I honestly think Mikey Madison is going to be up for several high caliber awards this season. There are still plenty of movies on the way, but if the Academy Awards were tomorrow, Madison might be my pick to win Best Actress.

Screenplay-wise, this film is one of the finest of the year. It contains great dialogue, even from the most minor of characters. I bought into every single character as they were presented on screen. This is a screenplay that at times is about the little things. You have the main dialogue, of course. But when that is not being brought to life, we see little quirks or trademarks come up for certain characters and I fell in love with some of them as they occurred. The script for this film has the style of a Coen Brothers movie like “The Big Lebowski” if it were directed by Quentin Tarantino. Honestly, there is a scene that in terms of pace and line delivery, I would have assumed was straight out of “Pulp Fiction.”

“Anora” is a near perfect film, but if I had to name any problems with it, that would be easy. This movie’s first two acts fire on all cylinders. I was engaged the entire time, and I was immersed into the story and its characters. But the third act, while still good, loses some steam for me. It is kind of like “Speed.” The film is fantastic and some of Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock’s best work, but the movie peaks at a certain point in act two. The rest of the movie is good, but not as hypnotic as it previously was. But never once did I feel bored or disengaged to the point where I wanted to leave.

I beg of you, watch “Anora” in a theater. Specifically, if you can, watch it in a crowded auditorium. If you are in New York or Los Angeles, part of me assumes this could be an easy task to accomplish depending on the time, but if you live somewhere else, take as many friends as you can. Ask friends of friends if they want to come. I am of the belief that every movie is better in the theater, and “Anora” is a testament to that. This is one of my favorite theatrical experiences I have had this year, partially because “Anora” just so happens to be one of the funniest movies I have watched this year. I am so happy to have been able to check it out in a nearly sold out screening. I was in an aisle seat and I was doing my best not to fall into said aisle sometimes.

In the end, “Anora” is fantastic! I know this is a rather vague review. But I am leaving it vague on purpose. Because other than seeing one trailer, I went into “Anora” blind. And I think that is the best way to experience this film. Because yes, I drew comparisons to films like “The Big Lebowski” and “Pulp Fiction,” but this is a unique movie with some of the most engaging storytelling I have come across in a long time. It is a great story that highlights class in addition to people doing what they can to get by. The movie almost drags towards the end. The third act is easily the weakest in my opinion. Maybe that’ll change with a rewatch. Who knows? But if you are looking for something original this awards season, “Anora” is worth checking out. It is also responsible for one of my favorite scenes of the year that in a lot of other movies would probably be half as long. But for whatever reason, it goes on for such a long time and I have no complaints about it. I am going to give “Anora” a 9/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My final Election Days review is coming up, and it is for “Elvis & Nixon.” The film is a lot of fun and I cannot wait to talk about it. As for new releases, stay tuned for my reviews for “Here,” “Gladiator II,” “Red One,” “A Real Pain,” “Y2K,” “Juror #2,” and “Wicked.” 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 “Anora?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a film that you really enjoyed but would also claim to be at its worst in the third act? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

W. (2008): No Review Left Behind

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the second review in my Election Days series! Today we are going to be talking about “W.,” starring Josh Brolin. The film is about the life of the controversial leader George W. Bush. It features a stacked cast and is helmed by a filmmaker whose respectable track record includes other films having to do with U.S. politicians such as “JFK.” Does this 2008 film earn a Texas-sized thumbs up? Or does “W.” take the L? Here are my thoughts…

“W.” is directed by Oliver Stone (World Trade Center, JFK) and stars Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men, American Gangster), Elizabeth Banks (Slither, Spider-Man), Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist, The Last Picture Show), James Cromwell (Babe, The Artist), Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws, American Graffiti), Scott Glenn (Urban Cowboy, The Right Stuff), Toby Jones (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, The Mist), Stacy Keach (American Greed, Titus), Bruce McGill (Collateral, MacGyver), Thandiwe Newton (Mission: Impossible II, ER), and Jeffrey Wright (Angels in America, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles). This film centers around the life of George W. Bush, the man who would become the 43rd President of the United States.

Like him or not, George W. Bush is an important U.S. President in my lifetime. Not because I agreed with his policies or because I liked him. Perhaps second to George Washington, maybe Abraham Lincoln, W. Bush is the earliest President I remember hearing about at some point in my life. Of course, with me being a child during the entirety of his two-term run, I did not immediately know the various aspects of his time in office that people talk about even today such as how he was President during the 9-11 attacks, No Child Left Behind, his response to Hurricane Katrina, his involvement in the Iraq War, and so on. The movie does not go deep into all of that, but it does not mean it is not a contained story. In fact, I would say I was surprised with how engaged I was with the film itself.

For the record, this is my second Oliver Stone film. I previously watched “Wall Street.” A film that I think does a really good job at capturing the hustle and bustle of the stock market and how much of a sport capitalism can be. So if you want me to compare this film to Stone’s other flicks involving U.S. Presidents, particularly “JFK” and “Nixon,” consider yourself disappointed. All I can say is that “W.” was better than I thought it would be. Though I really should not be surprised. It contains tons of great actors, moves at a brisk pace, and features several engaging characters.

The one thing I will say though about this movie, is that I wonder how people who do not know anything about George W. Bush, his family, or maybe live outside the U.S. would take this film. This movie came out in 2008. W. Bush was still in office at the time, making this is a topical picture during its release. I will let you be the judge as to whether 16 years is a long time, but that is how long it has been since this film has come out. There are people in high school right now who were born around the time Barack Obama first became President. I am not going to pretend I have the strongest opinions on W. Bush’s time in office because as I said before, he was President during my youth. During that time in my life, I was more concerned as to when would the next time I was going to Outback Steakhouse as opposed to the state of the economy. The film dives into the days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and I am sure even a number of younger people who may end up watching the movie today would probably have an opinion on it. But such a topic is probably not going to have the same impact on those who vividly remember living through that time in history. At times, this feels like a 2008 film that was specifically made for a 2008 audience. I am not insulting those audiences, just to be clear. Those same audiences also got to witness timeless cinema like “Wall-E” and “Slumdog Millionaire.” But would “W.” hit the same way for today’s generation? Hard to say.

That said, the film is still quite universal in its story. It dives into W. Bush’s relationship with his father, which I thought was one of the best parts of this movie. Even though W. Bush comes from a family with a storied legacy, his relationship with his father is something I think a lot of people can relate to. Because we all have parents, and deep down, most of us want to do anything that will keep us from breaking their hearts. The two have a steady connection, but it is not perfect. Nor is it without rules.

My favorite deep dive in the film has to do with George W. Bush’s relationship with alcohol. We see how much drinking impacts his life in terms of the choices he makes, how it affects his relationships with other people, and his overall stability. The movie tends to present alcohol as an obstacle that keeps W. Bush from potential success. We notice as W. Bush ages and becomes more accomplished, mainly in politics, he gives it up. The movie shows how much drinking holds W. Bush back and how him giving it up seems to correlate with his achievements.

As for the performance of George W. Bush (right) himself, I have to say Josh Brolin did a good job in the role. Never once did I feel Brolin was trying to do an impression of the character. He kind of made the performance his own. He was bold in his presence and consistently commanding from scene to scene. Is it the greatest performance of a U.S. President in film history? No it is not. But to be fair, it is hard to compare with Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead of “Lincoln,” a film that came out four years later. In fact, during the same year “W.” was released, audiences were also treated to “Frost/Nixon,” and I would argue Frank Langella did an even better job as the titular leader in that film.

The supporting cast in this film also manages to put their best foot forward. Elizabeth Banks is a standout as Laura Bush. Richard Dreyfuss does a good job as Dick Cheney. And I thought James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush (right) was excellent casting. Across the board, I cannot name a single performance in “W.” I did not like.

But I have to give props not only to Josh Brolin for having the presence one would expect of a flawed but charming leader, but also to the writer of this film, Stanley Weiser, for bringing some decent material to the screen. Unfortunately, it is not all perfect. Despite the film never once feeling boring, it is a tad bewildering at times. The film comes off like I am in history class, and we are doing a unit on the Bush era of politics, whether that is W.’s time or his father’s, maybe with a brief cameo from Jeb here and there. But the unit does not have a clear path. It kind of jumps from place to place and it is not that organized. I guess in a way you can call “W.” a nicely laid out mess. Because I understand the film and what was presented to me. The final product did not melt my brain. I am just not sure if maybe the specific non-linear route the story took was as compelling as it was trying to be.

In the end, “W.” is not a movie I intend to watch again within the next year, but it is one I can definitely see myself revisiting at some point in my life. Again, I am a bit of a novice when it comes to Oliver Stone. “W.” just happens to be a third film in his trilogy revolving around U.S. Presidents. Given how I enjoyed “W.,” it makes me want to go back at check out “JFK” and “Nixon” should the chance ever come up. Is this movie for everyone? Probably not. It is about a controversial leader, so therefore I would not expect it to be for everyone. But it has the hallmarks of a good movie. Decent storytelling, good acting, solid production, and while it is a bit jumbled, I did appreciate Oliver Stone’s vision and what he brought to the table. I am going to give “W.” a 7/10.

“W.” is now available on DVD, Blu-ray, and on VOD. As of this writing, the film is available to stream on Peacock to all subscribers, and can be watched for free on Tubi, Philo, and the Roku Channel.

Thanks for reading this review! My next entry to the Election Days series is going to be for “On the Basis of Sex,” a film about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the second woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you want to see this review 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 “W.?” What did you think about it? Or, do you have a favorite Oliver Stone film? Which of his U.S. President movies would you say is your favorite? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Campaign (2012): Congressional Chaos Ensues in This Middle of the Road Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is November and it is finally time for another monthly review series. Welcome to Election Days! Speaking of which, today is November 5th, or as the U.S. knows it, Election Day. I try not to talk about politics on Scene Before, sometimes if I am talking about a political movie, such a thing is unavoidable. But all month long, I will be discussing movies that center around U.S. politics, and we are going to start this review series by talking about the 2012 comedy, “The Campaign.” This is my second time watching the film. I checked it out once a couple years ago. So, here is my second impression of the movie.

“The Campaign” is directed by Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Dinner for Schmucks) and stars Will Ferrell (Megamind, Step Brothers) and Zach Galifianakis as two candidates running for a seat in the 14th Congressional District in North Carolina.

(L-r) ZACH GALIFIANAKIS as Marty Huggins and WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

As I mentioned in the intro, this is my second time watching “The Campaign,” that is unless you count other times I overheard the film in the background when it was airing on cable. That said, this is my second committed viewing of the film. Truth be told, when it comes to my first time watching “The Campaign,” I was not in love with the film by the end of it. Yes, it certainly has a good cast between Will Ferrell, Dan Aykroyd, John Lithgow, and even Thomas Middleditch. There’s no shortage of likable actors in the movie. But it does not change the fact that I have seen them do better things. That said, I thought some people were well placed in their respective roles. I thought everyone did okay with the material given to them. My biggest problem with the film though is perhaps also my biggest problem with “Killers of the Flower Moon,” particularly the protagonist. Having seen the movie a second time, I can confirm that problem continues to linger.

(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady, KATHERINE LaNASA as Rose Brady, MADISON WOLFE as Jessica Brady and RANDALL CUNNINGHAM as Cam Jr. in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

I do not need all my protagonists to be the same, but I found Will Ferrell’s character, Cam Brady, to be a bit of an egotist, kind of jerky sometimes, and somewhat hard to root for. My distaste for Brady does not have as much as to with his policies or political views in comparison to his personality. I am not in love with the way he presents himself. Granted, Will Ferrell has previously played Ron Burgundy in “Anchorman,” who is also kind of jerky and an egotist. However, I believe Burgundy crosses that line to where he is not exactly a butthead, but rather a lovable moron. Also, I found “Anchorman” to be much more quotable, much funnier. I barely remembered the dialogue from “The Campaign” once the movie was finished. Now that the movie is fresh in my mind, I can say that even after the second time, the film is still nowhere near as quotable as “Anchorman.” That said, there are a lot of decent comedy gags.

A couple of my favorite parts of the movie include one moment where we see Zach Galifianakis’ character, Marty Huggins, having dinner with his family, and they all confess personal sins or mishaps to which they have connected themselves recently. And the further we get into the conversation, the crazier the sin. We hear confessions from Huggins’ wife, Mitzi (Sarah Baker), and their two boys. It was one of the funnier scenes of the movie. I want to know how much of it was improvised by the actors themselves or how much of it was written in advance, because a lot of what was revealed in this particular scene is pretty clever.

I think I would like this movie better if Cam Brady was not the main character. Again, I do not find him to be particularly likable. Honestly, I found myself more interested in the story behind Marty Huggins, an everyday North Carolinian who does tours of his town. Sure, the movie sort of stereotypes the character and basically makes him a live-action Ned Flanders to an overwhelming degree, but I thought the character was charming. But I also think this kind of gets into the nitty gritty of general politics where something as simple as getting to power becomes a competition where people have no choice but to fight dirty. Sometimes an ego can help you make your way to the top. Sometimes people like that. There is a saying that nice guys finish last and that saying could perhaps apply to politics from time to time.

I am reviewing this movie during the U.S. election season of 2024, and one of the most prominent things I can say about the film is that there are parallels to said season. I do not want to highlight my political views, but Cam Brady as a character reminds me a bit of Donald Trump. They are not the same guy by any stretch of the imagination. But Trump seems to do well with males. There is a scene where we see Brady and crew watching a concept for a campaign ad and it paints Brady as a “REAL AMERICAN MAN,” and spends lots of time hyping up how his partner is a flexible, attractive cheerleader, and the ad shows her off like she is auditioning for Playboy. Unsurprisingly, that ad tested very well with men, but not so fantastically with women. Without spoiling anything, Brady relationship with said partner sort of reminds me of what some people speculate about Trump’s current relationship with his wife, Melania. Specifically as to whether Melania genuinely loves her husband as opposed to being by his side for an unrelated reason. But you could also say this movie does a good job at drawing parallels to typical behavior we see in politics nowadays, more than what we are just seeing in this election season. Whether it is putting words in other people’s mouths, finger-pointing, politicians pretending to be more interested in a subject or topic than perhaps they actually are. The movie shows how much the opponents try to one up each other to the point where they will be okay with issuing the most public of humiliations. The rivalry comes off like “Impractical Jokers” if instead of it being between a group of friends, it is between two enemies who have no chance of making up and making out at the end of the day.

Also, Joe Gatto, I miss you… If you want to come back, please do. You’re an icon.

(L-r) JOHN LITHGOW as Glenn Motch and DAN AYKROYD as Wade Motch in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

One particular highlight of the movie for me, or more accurately, two highlights, are John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd as Glenn and Wade Motch. These men are a couple of money-hungry brothers who end up playing a role in the race between the two candidates. From a casting perspective, I think both actors are well placed and they do a great job with their material. I also want to know if it was on purpose that whoever cast these two or the director wanted the two brothers to look like real-life variants of Statler and Waldorf from “The Muppets.” I mean look at them! The resemblance is there! They also have some of the better lines in the film. There is one exchange towards the final minutes of the runtime that got a good laugh out of me. As I said, this is not the funniest movie I have ever seen, but when it sticks the landing, it does so very well.

This movie also features its fair share of news reports. Most of the time when news reports come up in movies, they do not really add that much to the film other than an instance of exposition or drama. But in the case of “The Campaign,” this film delivers perhaps one of the funnier anchor reads I have come across in the history of cinema, particularly from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.

“This is likely to hurt him (Brady) with the Christian right, social conservatives. Really any group that opposes baby-punching.” -Chris Matthews

And yes, this is one of those major incidents we see come up in connection to our main protagonist. He accidentally punches a baby. This happens during the first half of the film, but it is not how it starts. I kind of wonder how much more I would have enjoyed the film had this particular incident been the first controversy the protagonist had to deal with. We see him in the first few minutes with his team dealing with the aftermath of sending a lewd voicemail to a family and it honestly just made him look like an imbecile. If we supposedly start with Brady punching the baby, it could have humanized him a bit more and maybe given me a more positive first impression. I get that this film is satirical, and therefore occasionally far-fetched, but I believe that there are moments of the film where the line is crossed a tad too far.

(L-r) WILL FERRELL as Cam Brady and JASON SUDEIKIS as Mitch in Warner Bros. Pictures’ comedy “THE CAMPAIGN,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

In the end, “The Campaign” is not going to get a lot of repeat viewings from me. It is not the best movie I have ever seen by any stretch of the imagination. And at times, it is rather predictable. But it is also perhaps more than meets the eye. Maybe if I revisit this movie in 2028 I will feel different about it, but if I can find some parallels between this movie’s script and the 2024 presidential race, then maybe this movie is aging just fine and could be something more than a middle of the road comedy. But unfortunately that is also what this movie is. A middle of the road comedy. It definitely has laughs. But I also have seen much funnier movies, especially from both Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis. I did not hate myself after watching “The Campaign,” but it could be better. I am going to give “The Campaign” a 6/10.

“The Campaign” is now available on DVD and Blu-ray and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! Stay tuned for more reviews in my ongoing Election Days series. My next “Election Days” review is going to be for “W.,” which stars Josh Brolin as former U.S. President George W. Bush. If you want to see this review 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 Campaign?” What did you think about it? Or, if they were to make another election race movie starring two comedians as opposing candidates, who would you like to see as the stars of that film? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Saturday Night (2024): Some of the Most Stressfully Exciting 90 Minutes in Cinematic History

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Saturday Night” is directed by Jason Reitman (Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Juno) and stars Gabriel LaBelle (Snack Shack, The Fabelmans), Rachel Sennott (Bottoms, Bodies Bodies Bodies), Cory Michael Smith (Call Jane, 1985), Ella Hunt (Dickinson, Cold Feet), Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Maze Runner), Emily Fairn (Mary & George, The Responder), Matt Wood (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Difficult People), Lamorne Harris (Call Me Kat, New Girl), Kim Matula (LA to Vegas, The Bold and the Beautiful), Finn Wolfhard (It, Stranger Things), Nicolaus Braun (Zola, Succession), Cooper Hoffman (Licorice Pizza, Wildcat), Andrew Barth Feldman (No Hard Feelings, A Tourist’s Guide to Love), Kaia Gerber (Bottoms, American Horror Stories), Tommy Dewey (Casual, The Mindy Project), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse), Matthew Rhys (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, The Post), and JK Simmons (Spider-/Man, Whiplash). This film is a showcase of the chaotic 90 minutes leading up to the production of the first episode of “Saturday Night Live.”

People look at “Saturday Night Live” today with a mix of opinions. Of course, when a television series of its notability has been around for several decades, chances are that not everyone is going to have the same thoughts on it, and there may be moments some find to be better than others. I often find myself going back and watching the series’ gutbusting “Celebrity Jeopardy!” bits with Norm MacDonald as Burt Reynolds and Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery. Those sketches are comedy gold and I find myself quoting it on a regular basis. I have even used one of those bits as part of my Film Improvements segment during the 5th Jack Awards. But the movie “Saturday Night” dives into a time long before that when the show had its humble beginnings. The film has a star-studded cast including Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, and Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster just to name a few people. Audiences of all kinds know the names of these characters today, but this movie is kind of an underdog story about a bunch of nobodies. One of the most positive things I can say about “Saturday Night” is that it easily gets me to root for its cast to do anything and everything they can just to make it on the air by 11:30. The film definitely has a Hollywoodized feel to it at times, but I think it works because some of the hyped up situations definitely add to the entertainment of everything on screen.

For those who do not know, since 2023 I have worked in live television, particularly local news. So while I might say the film “Broadcast News” is sometimes more specifically reflective of my work environment, even though that movie came out years before I was born, “Saturday Night” also does a great job at encapsulating the vibe of working in a live production. This film dives into the first episode of “Saturday Night Live,” but I must say as someone who has been working in local news for almost a couple years now, even when the formula may be familiar, there have been times that feel as if we are making a live broadcast for the first time. After all, there is so much that has to be done for several shows in a single streak of hours. Therefore, something down the line is bound to screw itself up. It is unavoidable. Sometimes it is my fault. Sometimes it is someone else’s bad. Sometimes it is a technical problem. But one thing I will note about my job is that we are lucky that we have a schedule that is set in stone. Sure, not everything goes right, but there is a lot that does. We have a history of shows behind us, and planned broadcasts for the hours ahead. We have a good team of people who all do their job as best as they can and offer excellent results. But our crew in “Saturday Night” learns that they are potentially going to be sidelined by a rerun for “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.” They might not even have a first broadcast.

There are so many things that this crew has to deal with in just a span of 90 minutes… Making sure the entire cast is ready to go. Convincing John Belushi to tolerate being in costume. Figuring out what to cut for time. Standing outside the building and trying to get people to join a live studio audience. Trying to sell the show to various affiliates. This entire film is a stress streak from start to finish. It is anxiety-inducing. The movie contains a moment or two that allow the audience audience to breathe. There are slower moments in the movie, but even in those scenes there is a sense of everlasting tension. There is a wonder if certain wrongs will be made right.

I mentioned this film has a star-studded cast, so chances are you are going to recognize at least one name on the list. But my favorite performance in the film is from Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase. From the moment I witnessed this son of a gun fall to the floor, get back up, and so casually utter the words, “Sorry, tripped over my penis,” I knew we were in for something special. Even though he has a legacy, I have heard about some of the controversy surrounding Chase, such as when he was on “Community.” Having heard about that almost makes this movie, and this particular performance, just a tad funnier. Although that makes me wonder how this movie will sit with certain people, because it reminds me of how hyper-obsessively knowing about certain comic book movie news stories over the years made me appreciate “Deadpool & Wolverine” in a way that I imagine some people would not. It makes me question how well the movie will age.

Also, Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels is a superb pick. This is a young, fresh actor who I would guess not everybody knows at this point, and I think some people will still not know a few months later, but I hope this review helps a soul or two get to know him, because he is talented. Michaels is the center of this rollercoaster of a film, and you can tell that in every single frame, he is nervous about whatever crazy derailment could come up. And those nerves rubbed off on me. This is a young guy with a lot of potential. But the thing about potential is that not everyone has seen it. Even though this is based on events that happened and I had an idea of how things in this movie would go, I was rooting for Michaels and crew to unleash said potential by the end of the film.

I also want to bring up the ending of the film. It is one of those endings that had me perplexed, yet satisfied. Because it comes out of nowhere, but it also closes on a note where anything after it is practically bonus content. The main story finishes by the time we get to said ending, but it comes at me like a bullet. It feels jarring. Given time to marinate though, I love what they did with the ending. I will not go into detail for those wanting to see the movie, but between the timing of the dialogue and the credits music, I am having a hard time imagining this movie capping things off better than it did. On the note of the music though, Jon Batiste, who actually has some recent variety TV experience as the bandleader on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” for seven years, does the score for “Saturday Night,” and it is perfect. At times it is subtle, but it is almost a character of its own in the film. Just thinking about parts of it gives me chills and nerves.

One good question to ask is whether this movie is a good watch for people who for whatever reason, have not seen an episode or sketch from “Saturday Night Live.” I think this film will definitely land harder for those who have seen some of the sketches, some of the episodes. That is for sure. But I think those who have not seen “Saturday Night Live” can still get plenty of laughs out of this film. Because if you have not picked it up already, this is not “Saturday Night Live” in movie form. It is not like “Jackass” or “Impractical Jokers,” two shows starring real people that end up taking their show’s format and converting it into a feature film. This is not this generation’s version of “Movie 43” so to speak… This is instead a buildup into how “Saturday Night Live” became what it is. This is, again, an underdog story, and I think a lot of people can appreciate those. And of course, there’s laughs, there’s tension, there’s a lot of big stars. Heck, JK Simmons makes an appearance in this movie, which I was not expecting at all. And I really was not expecting him to be cast in the kind of role in which he was picked to play. At one point he is just dancing like a moron, and he plays it up so well that I am laughing not because of the physical movements, but the guy doing said physical movements. I often pick apart animated movies nowadays for an overreliance on star power, but this is a movie that uses star power like few others I have seen recently, and I would say it does a great job with it. The cast is stacked and everyone plays their part to a T.

Maybe you know the names Kaia Gerber or Willem Dafoe or Dylan O’Brien. But what makes this movie is not the stars, it is the compelling narrative, ferocious pace, and laugh out loud funny comedy that honestly could match the feeling of a watching a spectacular “Saturday Night Live” episode at home on your couch or on your bed.

In the end, “Saturday Night” is an utter delight. I absolutely loved this movie. Granted, I am a bit biased because I work in live television so it kind of reminded me of the environment in which find myself on a regular basis. These are for two very different programs, but when putting two and two together, I found some commonalities. This was a movie that from scene one takes you on a ride, and I did not want it to end. That said, when it did end, I was satisfied and infatuated with what I saw. Does it sometimes feel hyperbolic in its execution? Perhaps. That’s probably my biggest critique, but the movie still works with that feeling intact sometimes. “Saturday Night” has the vibe, filmmaking style, and comedic flair of “The Disaster Artist,” but it uses those ideas and presents them in a movie with the pacing of “Speed” starring Keanu Reeves. I am going to give “Saturday Night” a 9/10.

For those sticking around, I wanted to end on this note because what I am about to say was intended as a part of the review, but it ultimately become a bit of a tangent. Nevertheless, I am proud of it. So I kept it here for you all to read.

This film is led by Gabriel LaBelle, who is still in the early days of his career, but he is proving himself to be a fine talent. But I am impressed by his luck, if you can call it that, in terms of his resume. Because a couple years ago he starred as the lead of “The Fabelmans,” which is an excellent movie by the way. For those who did not see the movie, it is directed by Steven Spielberg and is loosely based on his life. In that film’s case, LaBelle ends up playing a version if you will of Spielberg in his youth. Now, he has gone from playing one of the most iconic filmmakers of all time to playing perhaps one of the most impactful TV creators of all time. I would not imagine people today know Lorne Michaels like they know the name Steven Spielberg, but it does not change the fact that Lorne Michaels has become one of variety TV’s staples over the years. Whatever your definition of variety TV is, I will leave that up to you. However, to this day, “Saturday Night Live” is still doing weekly episodes. NBC’s “Late Night” format is still kicking with Seth Meyers at this point, who I would say is doing a very good job. I particularly think his “A Closer Look” segments are well timed and always end on a high note. It makes me wonder what is next for LaBelle. Is he going to take on notable game show hosts next and play young Alex Trebek? I think he’d do an okay job with that. They’re both Canadian! Just an idea! Heck, he could probably play Bob Eubanks! Peter Tomarkan! I could even see him as Pat Sajak! LaBelle has chops, I am just saying!

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis,” his passion project which has now been in theaters for several weeks. Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “Venom: The Last Dance.” 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 “Saturday Night?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite “Saturday Night Live” sketch? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Piece by Piece (2024): A “Happy” LEGO Lucky Time at the Movies

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Piece by Piece” is directed by Morgan Neville (20 Feet from Stardom, Won’t You be My Neighbor?) and stars Pharrell Williams in his own biographical documentary comedy entirely told though a LEGO animation style. The film centers around Williams’ life, how he grew up, how he created his music, and how he became the star people know him to be today.

I will be real… Modern music is not my forte. I have often distanced myself from the material in the past number of years that winds itself up in the “top 40.” I find that a decent amount of the biggest hits that come out nowadays are not my cup of tea. But one of the advertising points of “Piece by Piece” was the song “Happy,” which is performed by Pharrell Williams, the film’s lead. Turns out I never knew who did the song despite it playing everywhere in 2014. Yes, it was featured in “Despicable Me 2,” but those films are not the most intriguing to me. I never cared enough to watch the credits and see who did the song. But when they advertised this movie, my first thought was not, “Oh, Pharrell Williams!” Before that thought even popped in my head, I had another one and that was… “Oh great, I have to hear ‘Happy’ for the six-thousandth time…” I despised the song when it came out. Despite sounding peaceful and cheery, I found that aspect of the song to be overdone to the point of annoyance. It felt overly cartoony. But despite my lack of knowledge on the artist, I was curious to see how this film handled Pharrell Williams’ story. I knew almost nothing about Bob Marley, but I cannot say that turned me away from the movie centered around him that came out earlier this year, specifically “Bob Marley: One Love.” If anything, the overplaying of that film’s trailers when I went to the cinema almost did. And then the movie turned out to make that streak of trailers all the more irritating.

But I found out about “Piece by Piece” just as the film was coming out. I wanted to see this movie because I thought the idea was original and creative. Yes, we have seen theatrically animated “LEGO Movies” in the past, and those have been great. There is a decent amount of LEGO content done for home viewing, and the same can be said for stop motion LEGO videos. But this was something that I have never seen. A LEGO-style documentary… This is also likely the first notable “LEGO” movie of sorts that has been done since Warner Bros. gave Universal the rights to make new ones. If you want to get technical, in this case, Universal is distributing the film internationally, but in the United States, this is a Focus Features movie. For those not in the know, they’re both owned by Comcast.

I really should not say I am surprised I like this movie, but I am nevertheless surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I say that because this film comes from Morgan Neville, who also helmed the wonderful documentary “Won’t You be My Neighbor?“, centered around television’s Fred Rogers. This film is not as good as that one, but I can definitely say this is one of the most unique animated features I have ever come across. Although one thing “Piece by Piece” does better is that it fantastically lets us see the world through Pharrell Williams’ eyes. To be fair though, he was alive during the making of this project whereas Fred Rogers died more than a decade before “Won’t You be My Neighbor?” came out. But “Piece by Piece” clearly dives not only into the life of Pharrell Williams, but the mind of Pharrell Williams. This film may as well prompt an argument that almost whenever Williams dozes off, he imagines whatever comes into his head in a LEGO artstyle. Like a lot of great stories, this is about someone who sees themselves as “different” from the rest of his peers. If this were Tatooine, Williams would clearly be some variant of Luke Skywalker. This film effectively captures Williams’ one of a kind personality early on. The film is autobiographical, so there is some bias that comes with a story like this, perhaps even when it comes to admitting personal flaws. But one thing I can say about this film is that in many cases, it is a nice, easy watch. It can be a good pick for a family movie night, that is as long as everyone in the household is okay with the occasional expletive despite the film’s PG rating. That said, this is a creative, animated take on how a documentary can be done. It has recognizable music I think some children and adults would want to dance to. But as a story it is also compelling. You can tell that Pharrell Williams is passionate about his music, and how he got to his position. The documentary shows he does not forget his roots either, even if he mentions he felt out of place at times within said roots. When it comes to drama, this film does not come with a ton of it. But sometimes a lighthearted story is all you need, and this is exactly that. But for the most part, this film has something for everyone.

Kind of like the Warner Bros. LEGO features starring Chris Pratt for example, there is a colorful, glossy tone to the whole picture. The film may present itself with blocky physical limitations but manages to use those blocks in order to give a spectacle that you could only get out of a project like this one. One example is done with water. There are plenty of moments in the film where we see water. After all, this film is set partially on Virginia Beach, and we learn about Williams’ fascination with a concept that he just so happens to see every day.

Not once does the film feel gimmicky or overdone. I think doing this documentary in LEGO is not just a good idea, but having seen the final product I can confirm it is absolutely brilliant. The way they integrate the visuals with the music is very well done. I even like what they did with “Happy!” I thought that sequence was fun. Even the buildup to the song was clever, where they clearly reference “Despicable Me 2.” I am sure the head honchos at Universal were very happy to have an excuse to shove the minions in another one of their films because lord knows they do not have several thousand projects with them already… Again, despite the blocky limitations, LEGO is all about imagination. LEGO as a concept and brand has a history of allowing children, adults, families, whomever to build anything their heart desires for several years. Yes, they have many projects that are based on things that already exist, but there is no doubt a creative spark to the overall concept.

“Piece by Piece” is quite funny. The film has a really good pace to it in general and the humor that does come up got some laughs out of me. It is not as funny as the Warner Bros. “LEGO movies” which gave me some of my hardest laughs ever as a moviegoer, but it has its laughs. One of my favorite parts of the film involves an earlier moment in Pharrell Williams’ career when he gets his first paycheck. And it is not a small paycheck. It turned out to be $10,000! Not bad for an early payday. But of course, Pharrell Williams was a teenager, so he did what a lot of people who have not fully grasped the concept of financial responsibility would do and quickly blow through the entire paycheck. Also, Snoop Dogg is in the film as himself, as are most of this film’s cast, and I thought it was a step up from his previous animated outing this year, “The Garfield Movie.” Seeing him smile at one point was kind of fun too.

“Piece by Piece” is undoubtedly a unique film, and it makes me wonder if we are going to see more projects like this. Part of me is curious to see another documentary done like this but at the same time, I somewhat would not like this to become a continued trend because I enjoyed this film partially for it being one of a kind. This movie is evidently going to end up nowhere near as successful as some of the other movies we got this year. Heck, during its opening weekend, it was not even the most successful animated film at the cinema. Despite it being out a week earlier, “The Wild Robot” managed to make more money during “Piece by Piece’s” opening weekend. But if you are looking for something fun and light, “Piece by Piece” is a great pick. Is there drama? Sure. But nothing over the top. If you want to forget your troubles for an hour and a half, this is quite a good escape.

In the end, “Piece by Piece” is a great time. It is one of those movies that I will probably be thinking about at the end of the year. I do not think it is going to make my top 10, but right now it is probably in my top 20. If you love animated movies, this is a good time to go to the cinema. “Transformers: One” is a really fun adventure. “The Wild Robot” is one of the best films of the year.” “Look Back” is a captivating and moving story. For the most part, I am going to remember “Piece by Piece” more for its style as opposed to its substance. The very idea of doing this film in LEGO is clever enough, but to have it look as polished as it is, I can say that is even better. This is not to say “Piece by Piece” is a bad narrative. It is actually quite fascinating, but when it comes to style and substance, the style edges out the substance to a certain degree. This is one reason why I think “The Wild Robot” is a slightly better film because I will remember “The Wild Robot” for its characters and the stakes that build as their journeys play out. The animation sometimes has an unfinished look to it, but like “Piece by Piece,” it is also creative in its design. But I think if you are going to pick a film between these two to watch on a movie night with the family, neither one is a bad choice. I think these can make for a great animated double feature with the family. I would suggest starting with “The Wild Robot,” which is a bit heavier, a bit more emotional. And once that is over, keep the night going with “Piece by Piece,” which contains less drama and some dance-worthy music. Of the two movies, I would call it the palate cleanser. Whether you decide to watch “Piece by Piece” with the family, by yourself, or as part of a double feature somewhere, you are doing yourself a favor. I am going to give “Piece by Piece” a 7/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Saturday Night” and “Megalopolis.” 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 “Piece by Piece?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite LEGO project? It can be a movie, a video game, a toyset, anything! What is your favorite LEGO creation? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024): A Long-Awaited, Gorgeously Convoluted Sequel to Tim Burton’s 1988 Horror Comedy

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is directed by Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and stars Michael Keaton (Batman, Spider-Man: Homecoming), Winona Ryder (Little Women, The Age of Innocence), Catherine O’Hara (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Schitt’s Creek), Justin Theroux (The Girl on the Train, The LEGO Ninjago Movie), Monica Bellucci (The Passion of the Christ, The Matrix Reloaded) Jenna Ortega (Wednesday, Jane the Virgin), and Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, The Lighthouse). This film is the sequel to the 1988 film “Beetlejuice” and follows the Deetz family as three generations return home to Winter River. Meanwhile, Lydia Deetz’s life turns upside down when her daughter, Astrid, accidentally opens the portal to the Afterlife.

Much like this summer’s “Twisters,” I perhaps got around to “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” out of pure luck. Why? Much like the original “Twister,” I only saw the original “Beetlejuice” once. And I managed to watch 1996’s “Twister” just days before its follow-up released. The same can also be said for 1988’s “Beetlejuice.” As for my thoughts on that original film, I found it to be clever and it occasionally delivered a few chuckles. The production design and costumes are also pretty good. But it is not my favorite Tim Burton movie. That said, I did watch the marketing for “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” and was somewhat captivated by it, even before seeing the original film. It looked like a good time, funny, and aesthetically pleasing.

For the record, I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” on its opening weekend in September. One of the first positives I can say about “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” and this is a timely one, is that it set the mood for spooky season. I love fall. I love this time of year. Especially as someone who lives in New England and has high standards for foliage. One tree’s trash is another man’s treasure. Speaking of my mood, this movie starts off by putting me in a good one. While the movie feels somewhat updated compared to the original, it is easy to tell it is part of the same universe, and it all starts with the intro credits. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” starts off in the best possible way it can. It kicks things off pretty similar to the original, where you have the opening credits, a series of nice-looking shots, and Danny Elfman’s awesome music booming in the background. It is very much a successful welcome back to this universe similar to how “Top Gun: Maverick” welcomed audiences back a couple years ago with some similar musical choices to its original counterpart.

Much like the original, Michael Keaton steals the show as Beetlejuice. He is funny, over the top, and gives it his all in the role. This is Keaton’s latest long-awaited comeback as a character he played in the 1980s. You may recall he reprised his role as Batman last year in “The Flash.” While I did not despise Keaton as Batman in “The Flash,” Keaton shines much brighter this time around as Beetlejuice. He is delightfully kooky and captures my attention every second he is on screen.

While this movie does see the return of actors like Winona Ryder, Catherine O’Hara, and the recently mentioned Michael Keaton, I was intrigued by the newer characters too. Believe it or not, I never watched “Wednesday” or the recent “Scream” movies so I was not fully familiar with Jenna Ortega’s resume. The only major role of hers I have seen was in 2022’s “X.” But I am delighted to say Ortega does an okay job in her role. I thought while her character was written with some cliches, I thought Ortega played her part well. I was invested in her role. She also develops a connection with a character named Jeremy Frazier, played by Arthur Conti. Their connection takes the story in a much deeper direction than I was anticipating. But while I appreciated the depth of the story by the time we get to see these two together, there are some things in this movie that I would have preferred to be cleaned up.

The biggest problem I have with “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is that this movie tries to shove so much into one project. This movie is on the shorter side, with a runtime of 104 minutes. But at times it feels longer. There are scenes in this film that go on for what feels like an eternity. Again, I had fun with this movie. But not only do scenes overplay, but there are so many story elements going on at the same time that “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” falls into the typical sequel trap where it tends to go bigger, but unfortunately, not better. I cannot pinpoint to an element that breaks the movie beyond repair, but there is nevertheless so much going on.

Speaking of a lot of things going on, this film at times comes off as tonally inconsistent. To repeat what I said recently, the film is fun. That said, it is not all fun all the time. And when the tones shift, that transition feels nearly seismic. There are instances, particularly in the beginning of the film, that came off as serious. The movie’s serious moments were not as well executed as I would have hoped. They did not invest me as heavily as the moments that followed. As for the moments that followed, those are the moments that I came to the movie hoping to see and just so happened to be pleased by. The start of the film, perhaps the first half hour or so, feels dark and gloomy. However, I should not pretend this is not exactly dissimilar to the original film, where within the first ten minutes, we see a couple drive off a bridge and die. But even when that happens, there is a sense of wonder, a sense of mystery, a sense of fun. “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” in comparison starts off making me wonder when the fun begins.

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has some clever concepts and ideas. I like the direction in which they took Lydia Deetz’s character. We now see her hosting a show called Ghost House, which deals with the supernatural. One concept that stuck with me by the end of the film is a Soul Train that takes passengers to the Great Beyond. It is not just called that because of something that could happen to your soul, but there’s a cool sequence where we see tons of people around said train dancing to soul music. I think by the end of the film, that becomes one of the concepts that feels overdone, but still, it was clever.

As for other positives in the film, Willem Dafoe does a good job as Wolf Jackson, I thought he brought some energy to the project. The color palette of this film is gorgeously vivid and immersive. It is truly eye-popping at times. Like I said regarding the original, the sets in this film are also a work of art. They are otherworldly and offer some extensively pleasing detail. This film aces its looks, but falters a tad when it comes to its personality. It comes off as somebody you know, perhaps a good friend, trying too hard to please or impress you. While they may be partially successful in said task, part of you wants them to calm down. Their point has been established and their task has been accomplished eons ago, so to speak.

In the end, I am glad I saw “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” Does it feel like a movie only Tim Burton could make? For the most part I would say yes. But the movie is ultimately a series of ideas that sometimes works and at others, fail to stick the landing. If you liked Michael Keaton in the original film, you will like him in this one. He does a fantastic job as Beetlejuice. I am not one of those people who hails the original “Beetlejuice” as an all timer or as my favorite Tim Burton project, but I think this sequel is a step down from its 1988 predecessor. If I had to pick a film to watch tonight between the two, my pick is the original. I did not hate “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” There are moments to appreciate, but it is nowhere even close to being flawless. I am going to give “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” a 6/10.

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

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for a couple animated films, “Transformers One” and “The Wild Robot!” 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 “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the two “Beetlejuice” movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!